A Study of The Impact of Leadership Styles On Employee Motivation and Commitment An Empirical Study of Selected Organisations in Corpor

A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES
ON EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND COMMITMENT:

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF SELECTED
ORGANISATIONS IN CORPORATE SECTOR
Dissertation Submitted to the Padmashree Dr D. Y. Patil University,Navi

Mumbai, Department of Business Management in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Submitted by
RIMA GHOSE CHOWDHURY
Enrolment Number DYP-PhD-116100003
Research Guide
Dr. R. GOPAL
DIRECTOR, DEAN& HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
PADMASHREE Dr. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY,
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT,
Sector 4, Plot No. 10,CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400 614
November 2014
A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES

ON EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND COMMITMENT:AN
EMPIRICAL STUDY OF SELECTED ORGANISATIONS
IN CORPORATE SECTOR
This Thesis Is Dedicated to my Mother Late Ms Supti Ghose

who made me believe in myself
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis titled, A study of the Impact of Leadership
Styles on Employee Motivation and Commitment: An empirical study of
selected organisations in Corporate sector submitted for the Award of
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in Business Management at PadmashreeDr. D.Y.
Patil University, Department of Business Management is my original work and
the thesis has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, associate
ship, fellowship or any other similar titles.
The material borrowed from other sources, incorporated in the thesis has
been duly acknowledged.
I understand that I myself could be held responsible for plagiarism, if any
declared later on.
The research papers published are based on the research conducted in the
course of the study and not borrowed from other sources.
Place: Navi Mumbai.
Signature of the Student
Date:
Enrolment no: 116100003
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis titledA study of the Impact of Leadership
Styles on Employee Motivation and Commitment : An empirical study of
selected organisations in Corporate sector,is a bonafide research work
carried
out
byRima
Ghose
Chowdhury,
student
of
Doctor
of
Philosophy(BusinessManagement), at PadmashreeDr. D. Y. Patil Universitys

Department of Business Management, Navi Mumbai during the year 20112014, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Business Management and that the dissertation has
not formed the basis for the award previously of any degree, diploma,
associateship, fellowship or any other similar titleof any University or
Institution.
Also it is certified that the thesis represents independent work on the part of
the candidate.
Place: Navi Mumbai

Date:
Signature of the
Head of the Department
Signature of Guide
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to the Almighty, who has blessed me with the fulfilment of a longcherished academic dream.
I am indebted to PadmashreeDr. D.Y. Patil University, Department of
Business Management, which has enabled me with this opportunity of
academic exploration.
This dissertation would not have been possible if the Director and Head of the
Department of Business Management of PadmashreeDr.D.Y.Patil University,
my Guide and Mentor Dr.R.Gopal did not provide me with his constant
encouragement,suggestions,constructive
comments
and
motivation.My
heartfelt gratitude is due, for his scholarly guidance, approachability and deep
concern for my skill enhancement, both as an academician and corporate
practitioner. I would always cherish the intellectually stimulating conversations
with him for the betterment of the research.
This thesis is enriched with the contribution of several academicians, stalwarts
in corporate world, my colleagues and ex-colleagues, my supervisor, my
friends and other well-wishers. Not all contributions have been on paper, but
my interactions with them have helped me see things in a different
perspective, and their support has helped me fight the battle of multiple
conflicting priorities.In addition, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all the HR
heads, who have enabled me to collect data from their organisations and who
have helped me establish connect with other HR heads who could help me,
and I thank all my respondents as well.
iii
The best and worst moments of my doctoral journey have been shared mostly
with my family, most of all with my best friend, my husband Anirban Dutta
Chowdhury, who has seen my frustrations, my sacrifices and has silently,
steadily egged me on to tread the path of quality. His support, both in my
professional career and academic journey, has been extraordinary.
The blessings of my parents, Late Ms Supti Ghose and Mr Amalendu Ghose
and my in-laws Ms Purabi Dutta Chowdhury and Late Mr Ajit Kr Dutta
Chowdhuryhelped me sail through this enriching but difficult phase. Another
staunch supporter was my seven year-old daughter Abhilasha, who, along
with her father, has endured my long hours on the computer and at the library
and was patient with my seemingly endless nights and weekends of study.
THANK YOU ALL
(Rima Ghose Chowdhury)
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter no
Subsection
Preliminary
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Title
Page no
Declaration
Certificate
Acknowledgement
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Executive Summary
Introduction
History of Leadership Styles
The Concept of Commitment
The Concept of Motivation
Leadership in Indian Corporates
Review Of Literature
Theories and Background of
Leadership
Recent theories of Leadership
Styles
Employee Commitment
Employee Motivation
Employee Commitment within
Corporate Sector
Employee Motivation within
Corporate Sector
Employee Retention in Corporate
Sector
Gap in Research
Corporate sector in India
Structure of Corporates The
Organisational Framework
Corporate Sector Oil and
Petroleum
Corporate Sector Fast Moving
Consumer Goods
Leadership in Oil and Petroleum
sector
Leadership in FMCG sector
Objectives, Hypothesis And
Research Methodology
Statement of Research Problem
Research Questions
Scope of the Study
Purpose of the Study
Objectives
i
ii
iii
v
viii
x
xii
xiii
1
3
8
9
14
21
25
38
47
63
65
66
68
77
78
82
96
99
101
104
113
114
115
115
116
116
v
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.3
5
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6
6.1
6.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
Statement of Hypothesis
Sampling Design
Data Processing
Limitations of the Study
117
118
Research Findings
Introduction
Pilot Study Report
Results - Description of
Respondents Characteristics in
Pilot Study
Testing the Hypotheses
Main Study Report
Results - Description of
Respondents Characteristics in
Main Research Study
Testing the Hypothesis of the
Main Research Study
Conclusion
Discussions And Conclusions
Discussion
Conclusion
Recommendations and
Suggestions
Recommendations
Suggestions
Scope for Further Studies
Bibliography
Annexure I - Questionnaires
Annexure II Tables and Graphs
137
138
138
140
123
135
150
160
161
168
238
241
242
251
254
255
260
263
266
296
308
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Description
no
4.1
City-wise Distribution of Respondents
4.2
Acceptable levels of Cronbach alpha coefficient
5.3.1 (i) For Pilot Study - Frequency Distribution by Age
(ii) Frequency distribution by Educational
Qualification
(iii) Frequency distribution by Marital Status
(iv) Frequency distribution by Occupational status
(v) Frequency distribution by Compensation
(vi) Frequency distribution by Length of service
(vii) Frequency distribution by Gender
(viii) Frequency distribution by Internal Promotion
5.3.2 (i) Data on Education of Managers as filled by
Respondents
(ii) Data on Gender of Managers as filled by
Respondents
(iii) Descriptive Statistics of Managers as filled by
Respondents
5.4
(i)Reliability statistics of Leadership styles and
Employee Commitment
(ii) Correlation of Transformational, Transactional
and Laissez faire leadership styles and
Employee Commitment
(iii)Reliability statistics of Leadership styles and
Work Motivation
(iv) Correlation of Transformational, Transactional
and Laissez faire leadership styles and Work
Motivation
5.6
(i) For Main Research - Frequency Distribution of
by Age
(ii) Frequency distribution by Education
(iii) Frequency distribution by Marital Status
(iv) Frequency distribution by Occupational status
(v) Frequency distribution by Compensation
(vi) Frequency distribution by Length of service
(vii) Frequency distribution by Gender
(viii) Frequency distribution by Internal Promotion
5.7.1 (i) Reliability Transformational Style
(ii) Reliability Transactional Style
(iii) Reliability Laissez faire Style
(iv) Reliability Work Motivation
(v) Reliability Organisational Commitment
Page
no
119
133
140
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
149
150
153
154
158
158
161
162
163
164
164
165
167
167
169
171
172
174
175
vii
5.7.2
5.7.3
(vi) Inter correlations among the Leadership Styles

and (a) Employee Commitment Measure and (b)
Work Motivation
(vii) Regression Analysis Leadership Style on Work
Motivation
(i) ANOVA By Length of service
(ii) ANOVA By Age
(iii) ANOVA by Educational Qualification
(iv) ANOVA by Occupational status
(v) ANOVA by Monthly Compensation
(vi) ANOVA by Length of Service
(vii) ANOVA by Internal Promotion
(i) Mean Standard Deviation of all Variables
(ii) Frequency Distribution of Employee Commitment
Scale
(iii) Frequency Distribution of Work Motivation Scale
(iv) Frequency Distribution of Transformational
Leadership Scale
(v) Frequency Distribution of Transactional
Leadership Scale
(vi) Frequency Distribution of Laissez faire Leadership
Scale
177
183
197
201
204
207
211
215
219
222
224
225
227
228
230
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
Description
Page no
1.1
Model of Transformational Leadership
1.2
The Supply Demand gap : Booze and Company
16
analysis
2.1
The New Managerial Grid
32
2.2
Maslows Hierarchy of Needs
37
2.3
The Leadership Challenge Model
47
3.1
Role of a Manager
103
3.2
Zinger Model
109
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APM
Administered Pricing Mechanism
LPC
Least-Preferred Co-worker
MBEP
Management-by-exception leadership
OC
Organisational Commitment
UM
University of Michigan
OSU
Ohio State University
WMS
Work Motivation Scale
WOVS
Work Orientation Values Survey
MLQ
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Leadership and the different associated styles have an immense impact on
how employees perform and grow, to lead positive organisational outcomes.
The purpose of this study would be to investigate the impact of leadership
styles on motivation and commitment, as a predictor of group or
organizational performance. For ages, Leadership has been a subject of
much debate and deliberation and how the different styles of leadership evoke
different responses from followers. In corporate context the dynamics of these
two entities the leader and the led play a key role in shaping the destiny of
the organisation. The study followed the positivist paradigm which provided an
objective reality against which claims were compared and truth was
ascertained. In this descriptive study, the goal has been to discover the
pattern of cause and effect, which can predict phenomenon. As a part of the
descriptive research methodology, data collected has been subjected to the
thinking process in terms of ordered reasoning.A quantitative research
approach has been used to analyze the hypothesized relationships.
The concept of leadership
The global financial crisis has resulted in a wave of unprecedented challenges
to the worlds economic & political order. In a situation of turbulence, the one
key factor that can make a difference, through foresight and dexterity, is
Leadership. However, as this study was initiated and probe started, to gain
xi
conceptual clarity, the results are baffling. The search for the right definition
has been age-old.According to Bass and Avolio (1997), a single specific
definition of leadership is a very complex task as literature and studies on this
topic are varied and there is no definition which is widely and universally
accepted. Some definitions describe leadership as an act of influence, some
as a process and yet others have looked at a persons trait qualities.
Nel et al. (2004) define leadership as the process whereby one individual
influences others to willingly and enthusiastically direct their efforts and
abilities towards attaining defined group or organisational goals.
Cole (2005) defines Leadership as a dynamic process whereby one man
influences other to contribute voluntarily to the realization and attainment of
the goals objectives; aspiration of values of the group that is representing the
essence of Leadership is to help a group or an Organisation to attain
sustainable development and growth.
There are various styles of leading, such as transformational, transactional
and laissez-faire.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational style of Leadership comprises of the components of
idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration and has been suggested widely as the optimum style for
managing change. Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb (1987) discovered that
leaders scoring higher on Transformational Leadership factors have followers
who display greater levels of transformational behaviors."The goal of
transformational leadership is to transform people and organizations in a
xii
literal sense to change them in mind and heart; enlarge vision, insight, and
understanding; clarify purposes; make behavior congruent with beliefs,
principles, or values; and bring about changes that are permanent, selfperpetuating, and momentum building." - Steven Covey, Author of 7 Habits of
Highly Successful People.
Transactional Leadership
The locus of the relationship is on an exchange. Each party to the exchange
recognizes the value of the exchange as well as the value of the relationship,
but these bargainers have no reason to remain together subsequent to the
exchange. There is nothing enduring about their relationship; no actual
engagement has occurred. That is, transactional leaders expect certain work
behaviors from their subordinates who are compensated for these behaviors
by both monetary and nonmonetary rewards.
Laissezfaire leadership
Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of
leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to
make the decisions.This style of leadership implies that someone in the
position of a leader does not fulfil leadership responsibilities and practically
does notengage or involve in any meaningfultransactions whatsoever. This
leader does little or nothing to affect either the followers or the outcomes of
their behaviors.Passive or avoidant leadership describes the leaders who
avoid getting involved in the work progress and decision making. Goals and
standards of tasks are not clearly articulated for the followers. This leadership
style consists of passive management-by-exception leadership and are seen
xiii
as withdrawn and uninvolved. Passive management-by-exception leadership

(MBEP) refers to the leaders who avoid being involved until the problems
become more serious and wait with no actions until things go wrong before
taking actions. Leaders who display passive management-by-exception will
not interfere into problem solving until followers suffer from certain serious
deviations or wrongs.
The study essentially has four specific aims: first, to assess the impact of
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles upon
organizational commitment of employees; second, to assess the impact of
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles upon
motivation of employees; third, toexplore the relationship between selected
demographic variables and employee commitment; and fourth, to explore the
relationship
between
selected
demographic
variables
and
employee
motivation.
The concept of Commitment
Employee commitment is defined as the degree of identification and
involvement that individuals have with their organisations mission, values and
goals. It is a multidimensional construct that comprises affective commitment,
normative commitment and continuance commitment.
Allen and Meyer (1997) define affective commitment as the employees
emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the
organisation. Continuance component is defined as commitment that is based
on the costs that the employee associates with leaving the organisation, while
normative component is defined as the employees feelings of obligation and
xiv
sense of loyalty to remain with the organisation and serve to the best of his
potential.
The concept of Motivation
Helliegel, Slocum, and Woodman (1992) describe motivation asthe force
acting on or within a person that causes the person to behave in a specific,
goal-directed manner". Driving employees towards a consistent behaviour in a
goal-oriented manner is essential for utilising the full potential of employees
so as to ensure quality output and successful organisational outcomes.The
imperative need to discover, comprehend and ensure employee motivation
has become a principal concern for organisations and managers because
employee motivation has been, and will be the deciding factor in work
performance,
success
or
failure
of
an
organisation
(Samuel
and
Chipunza,2009).
Review of Literature
An attempt has been made to review the concepts of leadership, commitment
and motivation in various literature, so that there is substantial foundation of
conceptual background behind this research proposal. Extensive research of
the available literature helped in identifying the gap which in turn served as
the basis of the current research undertaken.
Anderson and King (1993) : Concluded that with respect to the management
of transformation
processes in organizations, there is a strong need for
leaders who are more change-centred. These leaders place value on the
development of a clear vision and inspire followers to pursue the vision. In this
way they provide a strong motivational force for change in followers. He also
xv
concluded that besides a participative leadership style, a clear vision or

mission is most likely to foster innovation.
Bass (1985) : Proposed a broader vision of transformational leadership, which
was to motivate followers to produce changes beyond expectations.
Specifically, transformational leaders are viewed as who have powers on
employees
with
individual
considerations,
inspirations,
intellectually
stimulations, and personal development.

Bass &Avolio, 2004 : They attributed Laissez-faire leadership to the leaders
who avoid interfering when serious issues arise, this could also be described
as non-leadership.
Blickle, 2003 : Asserts that as suggested by Drucker (1999), organizations are
now evolving toward structures in which rank means responsibility but not
authority, and where the supervisors job is not to command, but to persuade.
Hence, in order to be effective, it is critical for managers to influence their
subordinates, peers, and superiors to assist and support their proposals,
plans, and to motivate them to carry out with their decisions.
Buchanan, 1974 : Defines commitment as loyalty, identification, and
involvement with some appropriate object. In an organizational setting, such
loyalty involves feelings of attachment, whichdevelops as individuals share
values in common with other members of the group.
Burns,
1978:
Developed
the
theory
of
transformational
leadership.
Transformational leaders would encourage followers to make great changes

personally and also generated great changes and challenges for the
organization. The characteristics of transformational leadership include
increasing confidence and motivation, clarifying follower's directions of work in
xvi
obtaining organizational goals, sharing beliefs and benefits, and being open to
employee's feedback and suggestions. Transformational leadership signifies
strong influences on relationship between leaders and followers that instils
power for achieving performance objectives and work goals.
Burns, 1978 : First proposed transactional leadership, which focuses on
exchanging benefits to satisfy the needs of both side of followers and leaders.
Transactional leadership focuses more on daily practices of work.
Eisenberger et al., 2001 : Emphasizes that commitment is feeling of emotional
attachment with something or someone. This attachmentmight be mental or
intellectual with a person, group or with organization.
Gaertner (2000: 487) : Argues that more flexible and participatory
management styles can strongly and positively enhance organisational
commitment. Organisations need to ensure that leadership strategies are
aimed at improving employee commitment rather than compliance as with
autocratic leadership style.
Howell &Avolio, 1989 : Opine that leaders who enhance followers confidence
and skills to devise innovative responses, to be creative, and to take risks,
can also facilitate the changeover processes in organizations. As promoters of
change, transformational leaders elicit performance beyond expectations by
instilling pride, communicating personal respect, facilitating creative thinking,
and providing inspiration.
Kanter (1999) : Suggests that, in order to build commitment to change,
managers should allow employees to participate; provide a clear picture or
vision of the future; share information; demonstrate commitment to the
change; tell employees exactly what is expected of them; and offer positive
xvii
reinforcement. This kind of information sharing helps alleviate the feelings of

uncertainty in the minds of the employees. They get more clarity about their
roles and the future direction of the organisation.
Kanter (1982), Pavett and Lau (1983) : Pointed out that an important
component of successful management is the ability to influence others. As
such, committed employees are more motivated and dedicated towards
meeting and achieving organizational goals (Pfeffer, 1998).
Lind and Stevens, 2004 : Assert that transformational leadership style is
considered more appropriate as it allows for leaders to rally people behind
clearly defined goals .
Stum (1999) : Argues that employee commitment reflects the quality of the
leadership in the organisation. Therefore it is logical to assume that leadership
behaviour has a significant relationship with the development of organisational
commitment
Swanepoel, Erasmus, Van Wyk and Scheck (2000) : Highlighted that
leadership styles that encourage employee commitment is essential in order
for an organization to successfully implement business strategies, achieving
their goals, gain competitive advantage and optimizing human capital.
Zeffanne (2003: 979) :Opined that the answer to the question of employee
commitment, morale, loyalty and attachment may consist not only in providing
motivators, but also to remove demotivators such as styles of management
not suited to their context and to contemporary employee aspirations. Thus, a
leadership or management style that encourages employee involvement can
help to satisfy employees desire for empowerment and demand for a
xviii
commitment to organisational goals. This aspect serves as the right pointer to

delve deeper into the styles of leadership.
Gap in Research
Past research, historical data, books in the library, catalogues, databases,
Internet, were widely accessed to arrive at the gaps in literature.The intensive
review of literature reveals that there is no dearth of researches focussed on
the subject of employee commitment and leadership style. But in the Indian
corporate sector, there are very limitedstudies on the impact of leadership
style on employee motivation and employee commitment. Within the Indian
corporate sector, it is very rare to come across studies which have been
conducted on the impact of leadership style on commitment and motivation in
the FMCG and Oil/Petroleum sector. Therefore the intention of the researcher
was to find out how far the leadership styles become parameters impacting
employee motivation and commitment in these selected organisations which
are of repute world-wide.The results of the study would equip the
organisational leadership to determine which styles to adopt so that the
employees are more committed and motivated and hence have a much better
engagement and connect with the organisation. Adoption of the appropriate
style will help induce trust and loyalty for the organisation.
Scope of the Study

The study is currently restricted to the permanent full-time employees of
support functions and operations, in the western, eastern and northern states,
of selected organisations in Fast Moving Consumer Group, Oil and Petroleum
segment, who are exposed to management researches and studies of similar
xix
kinds. The premise was that confirmed employees have spent significant
amount of time in the organisation and are equally affected by some basic
processes which could influence their perspectives on commitment and
motivation. The study could also be extended to the non-management
category of employees at the lower grades, where they could judge the
leadership styles of supervisors managing them.It could also be extended to
other states of India and even globally, since all these organisations have a
significant global presence.
Objectives of the Study
Based on the above findings, the objectives of the study were as follows :
1. To assess the impact of Transformational Leadership Styles and level
of Employee Commitment
2. To assess the impact of Transactional Leadership Styles and level of
Employee Commitment
3. To assess the impact of Laissez Faire Leadership Styles and level of
Employee Commitment
4. To assess the impact of Transformational Leadership Styles and
Employee Motivation
5. To assess the impact of Transactional Leadership Styles and
Employee Motivation
6. To assess the impact of Laissez Faire Leadership Styles and
Employee Motivation
The study would be limited to select cities of Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Delhi and
Kolkata. The employees who responded to the study were working atdifferent
xx
levels in Eastern and northern region in India and were informed of

theiranonymity.
Statement of Hypothesis:
The following hypotheses would be tested:
H01 :There is no significant relation between Transformational leadership style
and Employee Commitment
H11 :There is a significant relation between Transformational leadership style
H02 :There is no significant relation between Transactional leadership style
H12 :There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and
Employee Commitment
H03 :There is no significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and
Employee Commitment
H13:There is a significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and
Employee Commitment
H04 :There is no significant relation between Transformational leadership style
and Employee Motivation
H14 :There is a significant relation between Transformational leadership style
H05 :There is no significant relation between Transactional leadership style
xxi
H15 :There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and

Employee Motivation
H06 :There is no significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and
Employee Motivation
H16 :There is a significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and
Employee Motivation
Sampling Design:
While conducting research, it was almost always impossible to study the
entire population. Hence the researcher used samples as a way to gather
data. This sample is the subset of the population being studied. It represents
the larger population and is used to draw inferences about that population. As
per the research technique widely used in the social sciences, this study was
conducted in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Kolkata and Delhi as a way to gather
information about the population without having to measure the entire
population.The targeted population for the study was the confirmed (not on
probation), full-time employees from Support functions and Operations, who
are exposed to management studies and researches of similar kinds.
Sample size:
The size of the population is 650. The margin of error has been considered as
4% and the desired confidence interval is 95%.
Sample Size: According to formula SS = Z2 * (P) * (1 p) / C2
xxii
Where Z = Z value (e.g., 1.96 for 95% confidence), P = Percentage picking

a choice, expressed as decimal (.5 used for sample size needed)
C = Confidence interval expressed as decimal (e.g., .04 = + 4)
Total Population is about 650 for the targeted group. Hence total number of
sample is 295.
Based on the population, sample size was estimated to be around 300 and
hence 450 questionnaires were distributed on email and through the HR
function. About 326 were considered to be valid since they were duly filled up.
Hence 326 questionnaires were processed for further research findings.
For the final study also, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal
consistency of each measure.
Distribution of Respondents
Sl no
Cities
No of Respondents
Mumbai
146
Navi Mumbai
65
Kolkata
50
Delhi
65
TOTAL
326
This formula is the one used by Krejcie& Morgan in their 1970 article
Determining Sample Size for Research Activities (Educational and
Psychological Measurement, #30, pp. 607-610).
xxiii
Based on the population, 85 questionnaires were distributed on email and

through the HR function. About 50 were considered to be valid since they
were duly filled up. Hence 50 questionnaires were processed for further
research findings.For the pilotstudy,reliability tests were performed to assess
the internal consistency of each measure.
Data Source :
The researcher used both primary and secondary data sources, which is
termed as triangulation or dual methodology.
Primary data source :
Primary sources used allowed the researcher to form reasoned conclusions,
base conclusions on evidence, and connect primary sources to the context in
which they were created, synthesizing information from multiple sources.
"Primary sources originate in the time period that historians are studying.
They vary a great deal. They may include personal memoirs, government
documents, transcripts of legal proceedings, oral histories and traditions,
archaeological and biological evidence, and visual sources like paintings and
photographs. "(Storey, William Kelleher. Writing History: A guide for Students.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999, p.18).
Descriptive Survey:
The survey includes correlational research and survey research, yielding
quantitative information that was summarized through statistical analyses.
Review of literature and other available information from various published
and unpublished reports of these organisations, data on these industry
xxiv
segments available in thepublic domain, journals, and periodicals, books,

newspapers, etc. (including databases like EBSCO, Pro-quest, and others).
Field Survey:
Research Tool:
The research instrument used for collecting primary data was Questionnaire,
which is the most widely used data collection methods in evaluation research.
The Questionnaires used for the final data collection were close ended
questionnaires. Questionnaires helped gather information on attitudes,
opinions, behaviors, facts, and other information.
In the final step, reliability of the questionnaire using a pilot test was carried
out. Reliability refers to random error in measurement. Reliability indicates the
accuracy or precision of the measuring instrument (Norland, 1990). The pilot
test attempted to answer the question,does the questionnaire consistently
measure whatever it measures?
To assess reliability of knowledge questions, test-retest or split-half is

appropriate.Data collected from pilot test wasanalyzed using SPSS (Statistical
Package for Social Sciences). A reliability coefficient (alpha) of .70 or higher
was considered acceptable reliability.
Aquestionnaire with four parts was used for different variables of the study :
1. Part A for Demographic details
2. Part B for Employee Commitment
3. Part C for Leadership Styles (i)
Transformational; (ii) Transactional; (iii) Laissez-Faire

xxv
4. Part D for Employee Motivation
Part A :Employee Demographics

This part contains statements concerning general information about the
participant and helps us understand the demographics of the respondents
who took the survey. The questionnaire aims to find out for respondents the
Age, Educational background, Marital status, Occupation, Monthly gross
compensation, Length of Service, Gender and the time when he/she got
promoted last.
Part B : Employee Commitment
This part of the questionnaire provides the Researcher with information on the
employees state of mind and attitude pertaining to his/her work area and
sense of alignment and loyalty to the organisation.
Part C :Leadership Styles
The first section of this part of the questionnaire deals with background
information about the manager available/observable to the employee. The
second section has questions which help establish the leadership style of the
Head of Function (or the person the respondent reports to), as he/she
employeeperceives/observesit.
Part D :Work Motivation
This partof the questionnaire provides the Researcher with information about
how the employee feels about the job.
xxvi
PILOT STUDY
A total of 85 questionnaires were distributed among the confirmed, full-time
employees in four locations. The population was the predefined set of
potential respondents in a given geographical area. The potential respondents
were the group of team members working for a manager in that organisation
in that location. Out of 85, 50 respondents instruments were analysed, since
they were filled up in all aspect. The final questionnaireswere moderated
based on the pilot study. The reliability test of the questionnaires was made
and was found to be good. For the pilot study, reliability tests were performed
to assess the internal consistency of each measure. Cronbachs Alpha
coefficients were reported as follows: 0.806 for the Organizational
Commitment
Questionnaire,
0.891
for
the
MLQ
Leadership
Style
Questionnaire, 0.834 for the Employee Motivation Questionnaire.

For the final study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal
consistency of each measure. Cronbachs Alpha coefficients were reported
as follows: 0.850 for the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, 0.90 for
the MLQ Leadership Style Questionnaire, 0.854 for the Employee Motivation
Questionnaire.
Data Collection:
The data for this study was collected through questionnaires administered to
the confirmed (not on probation), full-time employees from Support functions
and Operations, who are exposed to management studies and researches of
similar kinds. The number of completed and returned questionnaires was 326.
Descriptive statistics, Co-relational statistics, Simple and multiple Regression
xxvii
analysis, One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Cronbachs alpha were

used to analyse the data.
The questionnaires were sent to employees in different cities of India. The
cross-section of employees in these selected cities was considered as a fair
representation of the attitudes and behaviours of employees in those cities.
Given below is the bifurcation of the data collected from different geographical
regions of India in tabular form:
xxviii
Distribution of Respondents
Sl no
Cities
No of Respondents
Mumbai
146
Navi Mumbai
65
Kolkata
50
Delhi
65
TOTAL
326
Tabulation and Statistical Analysis of Data:

The responses observed from each of the items in the instrument used for
primary data collection were scored and tabulated into a master sheet. The
statistical tools included Co-relation, Regression techniques, Simple and
Multiple regression, Anova. Descriptive statistics have been applied to draw
logical conclusion. The analysis was done using Statistical Package of Social
Sciences (SPSS).
Interpretation and Report Writing:
The analysed data were finally interpreted to draw the conclusions and
reported with the objective of the study in view. The same was also used to
test the hypotheses put forward by the researcher.
Major Findings:
The questionnaire used for the study of the respondents characteristics
included 8 items. All the respondents were operational and managerial fulltime confirmed employees in three organisations in corporate sector. They
were asked about their age, education, marital status, gender, occupational
xxix
status, salary (monthly income), length of services and internal promotion.

The questionnaire used for the Testing of Hypothesis consists of fourparts:
1) Demographic details
2) Employee Commitment
3) Leadership styles as observed by the employees
4) Employee Motivation
The hypothesis of this study addressed the field of Leadership, Employee
Commitment and Motivation and how the demographic factors affect the two
variables Employee Commitment and Employee Motivation. In the current
study, Six (6) hypotheses were tested. To test these, some appropriate
statistical tools such as frequency analysis, analysis of variance (Anova),
Pearsons co-relation techniques, regression techniques simple and
multiple, were used.
The findings are discussed below:
Transformational Leadership Style: Transformational leadership styles as
observed by employees are found to be positively co-related and highly
significant with the Employee Commitment.
Transformational leadership styles as observed by employees are found to be
positively co-related and highly significant with the Employee Motivation.
Transactional Leadership Style: Transactional leadership styles as
observed by employees are found to be positively co-related and highly
Transactional leadership styles as observed by employees are found to be
positively co-related and highly significant with the Employee Motivation.
xxx
Laissez-fairre Leadership Style: Laissez-fairre leadership styles as

observed by employees are found to be negatively co-related and highly
Laissez-faire leadership styles as observed by employees are found to be
negatively co-related and highly significant with the Employee Motivation.
The statistical results have indicated a positive direct relationship between
three dimensions of transformational leadership styles, namely intellectual
stimulation, idealized influence, and inspirational motivation, with affective and
normative commitment. Similarly, two dimensions of transformational
leadership, namely, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration
were found to have positive relationship with continuance commitment.
Transformational
Leadership
Style
vs
Transactional
Leadership
Style:Transformational leadership style has a greater impact on Employee

Commitment compared to Transactional leadership style.
Transformational leadership style has a greater impact on Employee
Motivation compared to Transactional leadership style.
The present study findings are consistent with previous studies by Walumbwa
and Lawler (2003) who emphasized that leaders who exhibit transformational
leadership styles are more effective in achieving significantly higher
commitment levels than transactional.
The findings on employee motivation also conclude that Rewarding and
Encouraging, which are salient attributes in Transformational leadership
styles, and are consistently to be one of the important motivators (Snape
1996; Erkutlu 2008), have played a significant role in employee motivation.
xxxi
Co-relations with Demographic details

Age: Age of the employees of the organisation is positively co-related with a)
employee commitment and b) employee motivation.
Education:Educational qualifications of the employees of the organisations
are positively and significantly co-related with a) employee commitment and
b) employee motivation.
MaritalStatus:Married employees of the organisations are found to be more
a) committed and more b) motivated than the unmarried employees.
Occupational
Status:Occupational
status
of
the
employees
of
the
organisations are positively and significantly co-related with a) employee

commitment and b) employee motivation.
Compensation: Monthly income (Salary) of the employees of the
organisations is positively and significantly co-related with a) employee
commitment and b) employee motivation.
Service Tenure:Experience of the employees of the organisation is positively
and significantly co-related with a) employee commitment and b) employee
motivation.
Gender:Gender of the employees of the organisations is positively co-related
with a) employee commitment and b) employee motivation.
Employees of Male gender are found to be more a) committed and more b)
motivated than employees of Female gender.
Career progression:Internal promotion is positively and significantly corelated with a) employee commitment and b) employee motivation.
xxxii
Analysis
The fast-paced growth that our country has seen post-independence has
majorly been due to the leap into globalization. This has also fuelled the need
to figure out leadership skills and competencies required to sustain the rapid
pace of life and business, as well as to drive growth. Considering the
complexities which exist in history of the country, intertwined threads of
culture, socio-economic diversity of the country and also of the states within, it
is important to focus on leadership issues which can drive key changes in
behaviour. The study basically aimed to seek an understanding of the factors
that may directly or indirectly impact individuals behaviours and consequently
drive
performance, in
organizations.Organizationalbehaviour
is
largely
influenced by variables like employees commitment to the organisation,

levels of motivation and styles of leadership of the managers. The literature
revealed that all of these were considered as major contributors to the
success of any organization, public or private, operating in any sector.
Based on the findings of the present study, the researcher developed the
following conclusions:
The research findings make it amply clear that in order to have committed
employees in the organisation, leadership plays a very key role. The function
heads need to utilise both Transformational and Transactional leadership
styles in order to have the desired impact on employees. Transformational
style of leadership had a significant correlation with employee commitment
(0.485) and Transactional style of leadership was also significantly co-related
to employee commitment (0.395). Laissez-faire style of leadership had a
negative co-relation to employee commitment (-0.398). It is also evident that
xxxiii
transformational leadership style is more effective in bringing in the element of

commitment in employees.
The research findings also establish that in order to have motivated
employees in the organisation, leadership plays a very key role. The function
heads need to utilise both Transformational and Transactional leadership
styles in order to have employees who are motivated to contribute to the best
of their potential. Transformational style of leadership had a significant
correlation with employee motivation (0.602) and Transactional style of
leadership was also significantly co-related to employee motivation (0.445).
Laissez-faire style of leadership had a negative co-relation to employee
motivation (-0.177). It is also evident that transformational leadership style is
more effective in bringing in the element of commitment in employees.
The results of this study summarized effective strategies of improving
leadership
skills
which
would
positively
impact
supervisor-employee
relationship. It is believed that this study may add value to the literatures on
supervisors leadership styles, especially in the oil company settings and fast
moving consumer goods settings, since there were limited literatures done on
similar setups. The characteristics of transformational leadership include
increasing confidence and motivation, channelizing the followers performance
for accomplishing organizational goals, sharing beliefs and benefits, and
being open to employee's feedback and suggestions. This would make
followers more loyal and aligned to the organisation.
The supervisors, especially the ones in senior leadership roles, should have
their own vision and development plans for team members, working groups
and organizations. They should motivate and encourage followers to
xxxiv
challenge themselves, move out of comfort zone and explore the untapped
potential.
others
They
the
should
direction
to
be
follow,
good
coaches
mainly
by
as
walking
well,
the
showing
talk
and
setting an example. Empathy and emotional intelligence also lay the

foundation for an effective leader-follower relationship. By being change
agents and visionaries and having the ability to deal with complexity,
ambiguity and uncertainty, they exercise a tremendous amount of control on
the performance of their followers. In some situations, transactional leadership
is also an effective leadership style, having moderate and positive correlations
with employee's commitment, and positive correlations with attachment to
supervisor and internalization of supervisor's values. To be more effective,
they should clarify expectations and offer rewards and recognition when goals
are achieved.
Also, internal candidates should be considered for promotions, whenever
there are opportunities. Job rotation, redeployment increase stickiness to the
organisation.Styles that encourage employee commitment and motivation are
necessary in order for an organization to successfully implement business
strategies, achieve goals, gain competitive advantage and optimize human
capital.
The organizations can develop certain training programs to develop
leadership skills especially for managers who have a big span of control. Even
mentoring programs, sessions by executive coaches help senior leaders hone
their skills. Professionals and trainers can use the results from the current
study to develop leadership development training interventions, based on
organisational and individual needs. Volk and Lucas (1991) demonstrated that
xxxv
leadership style was the only predictor of employee's retention and explained
32% of the variance in turnover. Over a period of time there have been other
studies which have all indicated that employees leave the manager, not the
organisation.
Analysis of the demographic factors indicate that age plays a big role in
developing and enhancing the sense of commitment and motivation. This also
explains the low stability, lack of commitment in Generation Y employees and
points out that for organisations which employ a significant number of such
employees, need to have special retention program and career progression
for them. The findings regarding gender of employees and the consequent
impact of employee commitment and employee motivation should prompt
organisations to think of gender sensitivity issues and targeted women-centric
programs which address their career growth and welfare.
The instruments used to determine the impact and the findings obtained,
clearly
indicate
that
by
providing
adequate
coaching,
mentoring,
encouragement, supporting work environment, sense of respect and

confidence in employees ability, the leaders can significantly increase both
employee motivation and commitment.
Limitations of the Study:
This study has some potential limitations. It may be noted that a causality
relation cannot be inferred due to the cross-sectional nature of the data,
although, it is one of the most-used methods in applied and field psychological
research (especially in organizations, Spector, 1994). Future investigations,
then, should adopt an experimental or longitudinal design. The data used in
xxxvi
the study were acquired using the same questionnaire and this procedure
might have led to common method bias that might have inflated the
relationship among factors. A second one is represented by the fact that the
criteria variables have been assessed by self-report measures, which may
reflect participants' perceptions rather than objective realities.
The second limitation is about the duration which is limited and short. A longer
duration of say, two years, would have given the researcher time to study a
broader cross-section of employees in corporate sector. Along with three
dimensions of leadership, namely Transformational, Transactional and
Laissez-faire, the study could have explored Charismatic style of leadership
as well, to give it a well-rounded character. Also, some funding would have
enabled the researcher to travel extensively and interview corporate
employees, even globally, to get a better insight on the topic of study. The
study could then also have a higher coverage to include other functions, like
sales, business development, marketing.
The aspect of culture in different parts of India and its impact on the leaderfollower relationship has not been explored here. The relation cannot be
inferred due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, although, it is one of the
most-used methods in applied and field psychological research (especially in
organizations, Spector, 1994). Culture affects behaviour patterns, but that
would have called for a study in itself and hence not covered here.
xxxvii
Suggestions:
The researcher anticipates that the findings, ideas and suggestions that
emerge from this study would be beneficial for the decision making authorities
of the organisations covered in the study. The revelations would provide an
insight into the Human Resources Management and Development strategy
formulated by these organisations, particularly when implementingpolicies
related to organisational performance. Even the institutions or experts who
partner with these organisations in their strategic journey could refer to these
findings to base their learning interventions. The study might generate diverse
interests andfocus on further studies in some of the areas highlighted.
Detailed discussions with the experts in the field of Human Resources
Management, for validating the results obtained through statistical analysis
revealed the following insights:
a) Focussed efforts can be undertaken byLeaders or Managers to adopt
more of transformational leadership styles since that act as extrinsic
motivator.
b) Sincere attempts can be made by Leaders or Managers to be more cooperative and participative in nature. Even while carrying out
transactions, the focus should be on solutions to problems rather than
fault-finding. The leaders should develop efficient team work and
express genuine concern and trust for co-workers.
c) The message of walking the talk as anessential factor in influencing
subordinates can be harped on executive members periodically. The
need is to adopt a collaborative culture and democratic leadership
leadership insteadof an authoritative or non-interference one.
xxxviii
d) Based on the findings of the study, a need is felt to establish a

soundsystem of benefits, promotion, and development in order to
increaseemployeesorganizational commitment, reduce labor turnover,
raiseproductivity and improve service quality.
e) The managers can strengthen their people Skills to be able to relate to
others and for others to relate to them in earning trust and building a
foundation of respect.
f) The managers can focus and introspect on shared goals to build
meaningful relationships that can then serve to achieve results
together.
g) There is a periodic reinforcement required to be mindful that leadership
is a give and take and the by-product of a trustworthy relationship for
the betterment of a healthier whole.
h) The managers may take an advocating approach to build a trustworthy
relationship.
i) Employees should be encouraged to take part in various training and
workshops so as to enhance knowledge, widen their horizon and
upgrade their skills to meet changing job requirements.
j) Programs need to be developed and people have to be trained on
areas of leadership, people management, coaching.
k) Decision making should be fast, fair and just, without unnecessary
delays, critical and urgent situations should be responded to as soon
as possible, to bail out their subordinates. They should be involved in
all the important issues which plague their teams on a regular basis.
xxxix
l) Communications on the strategy of the organisation and the function

should be regular and there should be formal forums to address these.
m) Compensation should be fair and based on performance. No bias or
favouritism should be encouraged in such decisions.
n) For new positions and replacements, internal sourcing should be given
a priority over external hires, to the extent possible. Promotions should
not be tenure-based but performance-based and have the aspirational
element embedded.
o) Inspirational and motivational sessions should be held at regular
interval by senior management or external experts
p) Rewards and recognitions in organisational forums go a long way in
motivating employees to bring out their best
q) Seniority should be rewarded and respected by involvement in
decisionmaking process.
xl
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction & Background
"Leadership consists of method, not magic" (Schmoker, 2001, p. 19).
Leadership and the different associated styles have an immense impact on
how employees perform and grow, to lead positive organisational outcomes.
The purpose of this study would be to investigate the impact of leadership
styles on motivation and commitment, as a predictor of group or
organizational performance. For ages, Leadership has been a subject of
much debate and deliberation and how the different styles of leadership evoke
different responses from followers. In corporate context the dynamics of these
two entities the leader and the led play a key role in shaping the destiny of
the organisation. The study followed the positivist paradigm which provided an
objective reality against which claims were compared and truth was
ascertained. In this descriptive study, the goal has been to discover the
pattern of cause and effect, which can predict phenomenon. As a part of the
descriptive research methodology, data collected has been subjected to the
thinking process in terms of ordered reasoning. A quantitative research
approach has been used to analyze the hypothesized relationships.
The concept of leadership
The global financial crisis has resulted in a wave of unprecedented challenges
to the worlds economic & political order. In a situation of turbulence, the one
key factor that can make a difference, through foresight and dexterity, is
Leadership. However, as we initiate this study and probe deeper to gain

conceptual clarity, the results are baffling. The search for the right definition is
been age-old. According to Bass and Avolio (1997), a single specific definition
of leadership is a very complex task as literature and studies on this topic are
varied and there is no definition which is widely and universally accepted.
Some definitions describe leadership as an act of influence, some as a
process and yet others have looked at a persons trait qualities.
Nel et al. (2004) define leadership as the process whereby one individual
influences others to willingly and enthusiastically direct their efforts and
abilities towards attaining defined group or organisational goals.
Cole (2005) defines Leadership as a dynamic process whereby one man
influences other to contribute voluntarily to the realization and attainment of
the goals objectives; aspiration of values of the group that is representing the
essence of Leadership is to help a group or an Organisation to attain
sustainable development and growth.
There are various styles to leading, such as transformational, transactional
and laissez-faire.
1.1 History of Leadership Styles

The widespread acceptance of leadership playing a vital role as a competitive
advantage for organisations (McCall, 1998; Petrick, Scherer, Brodzinski,
Quinn, & Ainina, 1999) has led to enormous amounts of spends in the field of
leadership development programmes and training (Avolio & Hannah, 2008). It
is important for the purpose of the study to trace the emergence of the theory.
The history of leadership theory started with an emphasis on traitsthe notion

that it is the make-up of the leader that makes all the difference. This
approach dominated research up to the late 1940s. But further researches
have proven that traits do not always predict leadership effectiveness, and so
researchers have shifted to look at the behavior or style of the leader. The
Romans wondered whether force or inspiration was more effective as a
motivator. Amongst the Athenian commanders opinion was divided: some
were against risking a battle, on the ground that the Athenian force was too
small to stand a chance of success; others and amongst them Miltiades
urged it. It seemed for a time as if the more fainthearted policy would be
adopted. As many passages in Herodotus make it clear, freedom for the
victorious aristocrats and plutocrats meant the freedom to rule over others.
This is when Miltiades urged the pole march Callimachus to cast his tiebreaking vote in favour of engaging the enemy at Marathon. it is now in
your hands, Callimachus he said, either to enslave Athens, or to make her
free and to leave behind you for all future generations a memory more
glorious than even Harmodius and Aristogeiton left. if we fight and win, then
this city of ours may well grow to pre-eminence amongst all the cities of
Greece. Miltiades words prevailedIn the battle of Marathon some 6400
Persians were killed; the losses of the Athenians were 192. (Herodotus, 363365) The language was typical. The enormously influential Simonides wrote
.men died in the battle to leave to their children their city prospering in
freedom. Thus, the Battle of Marathon as recorded by the ancient historian
Herodotus (1954/400 B.C.E), fought in the fifth century BCE, provides an
early record of leadership exemplified by the general Miltiades who displayed

the qualities of charisma and inspirational motivation.
Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) have associated these two constructs with the
concept of Transformational Leadership, identified in Western scholarly
literature over 2,000 years later. These constructs, in association with those of
intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Bass, 1998), form the
basis for a leadership style which, while apparently efficacious for the 8
ancient Greeks, has been proposed as the optimum style to effect the radical
changes needed in 21st century organizations.
Fisher (1985) writes, Leadership is probably the most written about social
phenomenon of all time (p.168), and laments that it is still not well understood
due to its complexity, defined by the number of variables associated with the
concept of leadership, variables that encompass the entire social process.
Transformational Leadership
The term transformational leadership was first coined by J.V. Downton in
Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process
(1973).Transformational Leadership, proposed by Burns and extended by
Bass and associates, has been conceived as a more complete model of
leadership than that advocated by the trait, style, contingency, or exchange
theorists. Burns (1978) first clearly distinguished between leaders who were
oriented to exchange and those who were oriented to change, the latter
identified
as
Transformational
Leaders.
Transformational
Leadership,
because of the components of idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual

stimulation and individualized consideration, has been suggested as the
optimum style for managing change. Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb
(1987) discovered that leaders scoring higher on Transformational Leadership
factors have followers who display greater levels of transformational
behaviors. The model of transformational leadership and its key components
are explained in the figure below.
Figure 1.1 : Model of Transformational Leadership
Source:http://www.managementstudyguide.com/transformationalleadership.htm extracted on August 19, 2014

Transactional Leadership
The locus of the relationship is on an exchange. Each party to the exchange
recognizes the value of the exchange as well as the value of the relationship,
but these bargainers have no reason to remain together subsequent to the
exchange. There is nothing enduring about their relationship; no actual
engagement has occurred. That is, transactional leaders expect certain work
behaviors from their subordinates who are compensated for these behaviors
by both monetary and nonmonetary rewards.
Bass (1998) has more fully developed the concept of transactional leadership,
identifying three levels. The first depends on positive contingent reward, a
reasonably effective (p. 6) leadership style where the leader and follower
agree on specific behaviors which are duly rewarded after satisfactory
performance. The two lower levels of transactional leadership, management
by exception and laissez-faire leadership, Bass (1998) believes are the two
most ineffective types. The management by exception leader or manager only
intervenes after a task has been incorrectly performed to rectify the problem.
Laissez faire leadership
Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of
leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to
make the decisions. This style of leadership implies that someone in the
position of a leader does not fulfil leadership responsibilities and practically
does not engage or involve in any meaningful transactions whatsoever. This
leader does little or nothing to affect either the followers or the outcomes of
their behaviors. Passive or avoidant leadership describes the leaders who
avoid getting involved in the work progress and decision making. They would
not like to clarify agreements and expectations of work for the followers. Goals
and standards of tasks are not clearly presented for the followers. This
leadership style consists of passive management-by-exception leadership and
are seen as withdrawn and uninvolved. Leaders who display passive
management-by-exception will not interfere into problem solving until
followers suffer from certain serious deviations or wrongs.
7
1.2 The concept of Commitment

Organisational commitment is defined as the degree of identification and
involvement that individuals have with their organisations mission, values and
goals (Mowday et al., 1999). Organisational commitment is a multidimensional
construct that comprises affective commitment, normative commitment and
continuance commitment.
Allen and Meyer (1997) define affective commitment as the employees
organisation. Continuance component is defined as commitment that is based
on the costs that the employee associates with leaving the organisation, while
normative component is defined as the employees feelings of obligation to
remain with the organisation.
Stallworth (2003) considers the three types of commitment to be
psychological states in which employees experience in differing degrees and
varying strengths. Stredwick (2005) indicates that a number of researchers
use the level of commitment as a key reflection of organisational success from
a people management view. An employees commitment is a concern to all
organizations because it has been linked to reduced turnover, increased
knowledge sharing, increased organizational citizenship behaviors, higher
acceptance of organizational change, ethical behaviour and reduced
absenteeism. Generally, higher or lower levels of commitment have been
shown to be a major driver of employees staying with or leaving an
organization (Shaw et al., 1998).
Without commitment, employees are not prepared to develop their skills and
competencies, take on board the enhanced responsibilities for quality, work
organisation and problem solving, and go the extra mile to come up with
improvements and innovations.
As organizations and their leaders have realized that, research on
organizational commitment has gained importance (Colbert and Kwon, 2000)
because of relationships between it and various measures of organizational
efficiency and effectiveness (Beck and Wilson, 2000).
Organizational commitment has been identified as a predictor of behaviour
within organizations. Secondly, the study showed that transformational
leadership training increases the affective organizational commitment to the
organization (Barling et al., 1996), so if the antecedent of commitment is
known then, the training programmer for enhancement of managers
organizational commitment of organization can be sketched.
1.3 The concept of Motivation

Helliegel et al. (2001) define employee motivation as the force acting on or
within a person that causes the person to behave in a specific, goal-directed
manner". Success in this endeavour is essential in the quest to utilise the full
potential of employees so as to ensure quality products and services and
consequently the success of the new organisation as a whole.The imperative
need to discover, comprehend and implement employee motivation has
become a principal concern for organisations, managers and even first line
supervisors because employee motivation has been, and will be the deciding
factor in work performance, success or failure of an organisation (Samuel and

Chipunza,2009).
In this study, transformational leadership behavior, transactional leadership
behavior and laissez-faire leadership behavior of the heads of functions as
observed or perceived by their team members across locations, were used as
independent variables. In addition, the variables of age, level of education,
marital status, occupational status, salary, length of service and internal
promotions were used as independent variables to determine if they affect the
level of employee commitment and employee motivation among the
employees of the three selected organisations. The dependent variables were
the level of a) commitment and b) motivation of employees.
The Work Motivation Scale which has been used for this study was designed
as a self-report instrument to be used in career development, preemployment, human resources, vocational counselling, job development,
work adjustment, job satisfaction, job retention, and disability management. It
assists individuals in career development and planning by helping them
understand their work motives and values and apply that understanding to
their career choices and preferred work environment. The Work Motivation
Scale is a revision of the Work Orientation Values Survey (WOVS), published
in 2002.
Work motives are important determinants of actions, and values are the basis
of cognitive choices (McClelland, 1985). Work motivation and values
contribute to the occupational choices process (Vroom, 1964) and improve
ones ability to predict behaviour (McClelland, 1985). While motives are seen
as hierarchical, changeable (Maslow, 1943), and acquirable (McClelland,
10
1965), human values are stable and enduring, give expression to human
needs, provide guidelines for making decisions, and help one choose
between alternatives (Rocheach, 1973). Early pioneers in the study of
personality, motivation, levels of aspiration (Lewin, 1935; Maslow, 1943,
1970), and career psychology (Super, 1957, 1970) recognized that motivation
and values play an important role in goal setting, job seeking and selection,
and performance.
Values, Occupational Choice, and Job Satisfaction
In their pioneering study of occupational choice, Ginzberg, Ginsburg, Axelrad,
and Herma (1951) investigated the role of values in the occupational decisionmaking process. They theorized that in the exploratory stage of career
development, the individual makes a final attempt to link his occupational
choice to values (Ginzberg et al., 1951, p. 189). They concluded that the
clarification of values and goals is an essential part of the occupational choice
process and subsequently affects job satisfaction (Ginzberg et al., 1951, p.
222). Evidence continues to support the relationship of work values to job
satisfaction (Chaves, 2001; Dibble, 1997). In presenting their conceptual
model, Brown and Crace (1996) state, Making choices that coincide with
values is essential to satisfaction (p. 215).
Work Orientation and Work Values
Super (1957, p. 299) had earlier suggested that there are both intrinsic and
extrinsic work orientations/values. He also stated that intrinsic values are
inherent in the work itself, whereas extrinsic values are generally associated
with the rewards, outcomes, and results of work. Super devised a work
11
orientation continuum (task versus pleasure) and suggested that some values
have both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics, such as the value helping
others.
Work Values and the Development of Vocational Behaviours
Super (1970) brought in the aspect of values in future studies of the
occupational choice process. The relationship of extrinsic values and gender
to occupational choice behaviour was also reported by Brady and Brown
(1973). Thus, values play a key role in occupational choice and career
development from an early age.
The Work Motivation Scale consists of eight values measures, or constructs,
that fall under four work motive categories: Earnings and Benefits and
Working Conditions are clustered under Survival and Safety Motives, Coworker Relations and Supervisor Relations fall under Affiliation Motives, Task
Orientation and Managing Others fall under Self-Esteem Motives, and Mission
Orientation and Success Orientation fall under Fulfilment Motives. The 2008
revision was named the Work Motivation Scale and also included Success
Orientation. Following are the operational definitions of the motives and
values:
Fulfilment Motives: The need for work that provides the individual with
opportunities to reach their maximum potential. Creativity, curiosity, foresight,
and competence are attributes that are often observed in individuals with high
fulfilment motives. Fulfilment motives are comprised of the following work
value constructs:
12
Success Orientation: Individuals scoring high on this construct are motivated

toward accomplishing career goals and reaching their full potential through
their work. Passionate about their work, they are willing to endure periods of
hardship to be successful.
Mission Orientation: Individuals scoring high on this construct are goaloriented, they see the big picture and tend to be less concerned with details.
They recognize how their current work fits into and contributes to the overall
direction of the organization.
Self-Esteem Motives: The need for achievement, responsibility, and
challenging and meaningful work tasks. Links between leadership and
achievement are usually present for individuals with high self-esteem motives.
Self-esteem motives are comprised of the following work value constructs:
Managing Others: Individuals scoring high
on
this
construct
value
opportunities to direct and supervise the work of others. They willingly take
responsibility for worker performance and the productivity of a work unit,
department, or work function.
Task Orientation: Individuals scoring high on this construct are oriented
toward completing tasks. Planning their work, making the most of resources,
and maintaining their focus are important to them. They may hesitate to
perform functions outside of those tied to a specific job description.
Affiliation Motives: The need for the acceptance and support of co-workers
and supervisors. Cooperation and collaboration toward meeting work goals
are sought by individuals with high affiliation motives. Affiliation motives are
comprised of the following work value constructs:
13
Supervisor Relations: Individuals scoring high on this construct feel that

cooperating and relating to their supervisor are important. They strive to meet
their supervisors expectations and highly appreciate their supervisors
recognition and support.
Co-worker Relations: Individuals scoring high on this construct feel that
relating to peers is important. They prefer to be actively involved in employee
related organizations at work and outside of work. They highly value
collaboration and teamwork.
Survival and Safety Motives: The need for employment with an adequate
livable wage and a safe and secure work environment. The need for favorable
benefits packages is also valued by individuals with high survival and safety
motives.
1.4 Leadership in Indian Corporates

Post Independence, this country has seen rapid growth in its industrial
horizon, especially in the past two decades. Quite a few Indian companies
have experienced impressive growth and have spread their wings globally
and come across as a formidable power in that particular sector. But there
has been a daunting side effect as well, manifesting itself in a nationwide
crisis in leadership.
As per the Strategic Human Resources and Talent
Management : Predictions for 2012 - Driving Organizational Performance

amidst an Imbalanced Global Workforce by Josh Bersin, Bersin & Associates
Research Report, 2011 has been one of the most tumultuous times in recent
economic history. Not only has the global recession continued, but the
14
disparity between the fast-growing emerging economies, and the slowergrowing U.S. and European economies grew. Our research shows that nearly
every major business is trying to globalize its operations, and move talent and
business toward areas of growth while, and at the same time, improving the
engagement, retention and performance of the workforce everywhere else.
Indian companies, slowly but steadily, are moving their focus on developing
leadership pipeline. They are investing in developing the next generation of
executives who have a huge power to influence the workforce under their
direct and indirect supervision. In a 2010 study by Harvard Business
Publishing, an overwhelming 88 percent of top Indian companies cited gaps
in [their] leadership practice as their top challenge in coming years. The 2012
Manpower Group Talent Shortage Survey, a global survey of employers,
reported that 48 percent of respondents based in India had difficulty finding
qualified candidates for their senior managerial positions. This report was
significant since it emphasized the need to enhance leadership capabilities
and inculcate appropriate leadership styles in the current leadership pool in
organisations. This study to ascertain how different leadership styles impact
commitment and motivation hence gains a lot of importance in the current
corporate context. It attempts to provide suggestions for the mantra If new
leaders cannot be hired, grow existing potential. The supply-demand gap in
leadership pipeline becomes evident in the illustration provided by Booz &
Company in 2012.
15
Figure 1.2
Source : Booz & Company analysis, 2012

Several underlying causes have contributed to this breakdown in Indias
corporate leadership pipeline. Understanding these factors can reveal the
opportunities that todays senior executives can use to set things right. It can
also provide helpful insight to executives in other emerging economies, many
16
of whose companies are also suffering from a senior executive talent

shortage.
Nandan Nilekani points out in his book Imagining India: The Idea of a
Renewed Nation (Penguin, 2009) that India lacks the educational institutions it
needs, from the earliest years to the post-college level. Thus, even though
thousands of Indian university graduates enter the workforce every year, they
are often not industry ready or equipped in the skills of global business. This
has contributed to a dearth of high-potential candidates and a growing talent
war for those few with desirable skill sets.
Young talent needs grooming, development and supervision. Generally, in the
wake of Indian business reaching worldwide, the lack of managers capable of
providing this guidance and being influencers, has been more acutely felt. As
the founding executives who built these thriving businesses, are now
approaching retirement, there is a need felt for the second level which can
propel the business ahead with a vision. As per latest researches conducted
in the field of management, the countrys economy is growing at a faster pace
than the rate at which the leadership pipeline is maturing. A decade of rapid
expansion and exponential growth has left companies in deep need of talent
that is in short supply. The B-schools has equipped the young generation with
theory and practical knowledge, but the hands-on leadership exposure has
not been imparted in the current curriculum structure.
Over the last couple of decades the traditional model of decision-making in
Indian corporates has also undergone considerable change. From the earlier
times when corner office made all key decisions and the respective function
heads were responsible for managing their silos, the corporates have come a
17
long way. That top-down model definitely worked, it had its own advantages,
command and control ensured a smooth operating structure. But then they
have acknowledged the need for creativity, incubating ideas, questioning the
status quo. There is a more participative approach now, which appeals to the
younger generation more, brings out the best in them and more importantly,
involves them in decision making.
As per the report published by Booz and Company in 2012, this leadership
challenge manifests itself on three levels. First, there is a quantity deficit:
Many Indian companies simply find it difficult to fill all their available positions
with qualified applicants. At senior levels, the no of positions available tend to
outnumber the qualified professionals. Second, an experience deficit
aggravates the problem: Todays senior and middle managers have not had
sufficiently broad or well-developed careers. There has been enough
investment on enhancing their functional skills, but people management area
is a lesser focussed-one. Finally, the talent war adds complexity: Competition
over high-quality executive talent is intensifying, and companies are willing to
pay exorbitant sum of money to the deserving person. From a talent
acquisition perspective, these three gaps pose the most significant challenges
to the future growth of their companies.
Indias young, growing population, its rapid economic and even social
progress, and its changing business models are the key reasons for the
leadership deficit. But there is also another key contributing factor. For ages,
Indian business leaders have focused on developing technology rather than
people. This technology focus has surely helped India progress and compete
against world powers, but lack of focus on people development has created a
18
gap. Today organisations have quality technical experts, but struggle to

convert them into business leaders. Indian companies have prioritized
achieving technical excellence, hiring engineers who have been trained to
pursue innovationbut not to manage people and lead organizations.
Irrespective of the sector, this is evident in Indian companies.
When it comes to hiring new talent and especially from the reputed B-schools,
Many Indian companies struggle with the strategy of integration and onboarding. The expectation is that these high-potential new recruits will excel in
people management positions, even before they are sufficiently integrated
into the broader workforce. This thinking is flawed, since without the adequate
exposure to people management, they sometimes tend to alienate long-term
valued employees from the mainstream. In the absence of a connect between
both generations, it is lose-lose for the corporate. In due course of time, to
respect the growth aspirations of functional specialists, promotions happen
but such professionals may not have had the opportunity to develop a broader
perspective or set of skills. Rapidly growing industries, such as those driven
by the rise of digital media, often rely on relatively young and inexperienced
managers to take on senior positions. By and large, these individuals have not
yet developed a leaders perspective. But each of these firms has had to draw
upon the companys existing pool of players to build its senior team. The
growth of that talent pool has not kept pace with those of the brands. The
ultimate result of this lack of qualified successors is that employees working
under their direct supervision become demotivated and demoralised.
Many Indian executives recognize the challenges, but are unsure what steps
to take to overcome them. First and foremost, they need to take a fresh,
19
holistic look at their leadership development practices. Their goal should be to

develop a sustainable leadership pipeline throughout the organizational
pyramid: a well-rounded leadership team to complement the required skills at
the top, a team of successors right behind them, a strong bench of highpotential individuals identified and developed in the middle, and a cadre of
young, industry-ready talent. This leadership team would be entrusted with
the job of creating an engaged and committed workforce. Developing
leadership capabilities requires them to know self, be aware of strengths and
weaknesses and be knowledgeable on the Johari window front and to be
willing to go in for continuous self-development as they gain experience.
However, it must be noted that, the lack of a leadership pipeline is not a
uniquely Indian phenomenon. Most of the worlds organizations have taken
the time to identify high-potential employees; even that exercise of
identification is a long-drawn process with involvement from the higher
echelons of management, and uses latest management tools and techniques.
Very few of these organisations had high-potential nurturing programs
focusing on all-round development of functional skills, knowledge of business
and people. But the uniqueness in India lies in the sheer availability of raw
talent, which is to a large extent, unutilised and under-developed. Talent
management systems need to be redesigned to focus on potential as much
as on performance and objective measures must be put in place to gauge
leadership potential, measured against specific criteria
20
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
21
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Leadership
Leadership is vital in any organisation. It involves defining the direction of a
team and communicating it to people, motivating, inspiring and empowering
them to contribute to achieving organisational success. Leadership requires
being strategically focused and applying behavioural techniques to build
commitment and attain the best work from your people. The ingredients of
effective leadership are complex and are widely agreed to depend on the
specific leadership situation, considering the difficulty of tasks, the degree of a
leader's authority and the maturity and capabilities of subordinates.
Leadership skills often take time to learn, because they are multi-faceted,
behavioural and context dependent.
Becoming an effective leader is challenging to many new managers, but
offers the rewards of successfully orientating peoples work to be most
effective and achieving excellence in team performance. An understanding of
the principles of strategic thinking, direction setting, communications and
motivation provides a springboard for developing skills and an effective
management style to suit your personality and leadership situations.
Successful leaders in business often demonstrate the following attributes;
An attitude of positivity, reliability and pro-activeness
clear vision of business goals
a firm commitment towards meeting defined goals

22
an ability to effectively communicate their vision
commitment to their team and to their organisation
skilfulness in planning and developing strategies
a focus on motivation and setting clear directions
the adaptability to engage with the views and needs of team members
an ability to inspire employees to meet goals
commitment to the happiness and wellbeing of their team
honesty and openness with their team
Leadership is a universal human phenomenon. The study of Leadership is not

a new phenomenon, but it is an ancient art. The old civilizations of Egypt and
Rome showed examples of leadership practices. Regardless of the culture,
leadership occurs universally among all people (Bass, 1981). From ancient to
modern times, scholars, military generals, politicians, and more casual
observers have been interested in leadership. Leadership styles have been
studied extensively; perspectives on leadership have been written and
revised. Despite all these efforts, the issue of leadership effectiveness is still
far from settled (Gordon, 1982).
Even though the word leadership has been used since the beginning of the
19th century (Stogdill, 1974), there continues to be the absence of a
comprehensive approach to assess cause and effect of successful leadership
(Taylor and Rosenbach, 1989). Burns (1978) described this situation by
asserting that .Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood
phenomena on earth. (p.2).
23
In fact, the concept of leadership has been defined by various scholars in

almost as many ways. Stogdill (1974) noted this ambiguity when he observed
that .there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are
persons who have attempted to define the concept. (p.7). This proliferation of
definitions for leadership is primarily due to the complexity and elusiveness of
the concept.
Lassey (1976) described this complexity by observing that .there is no clearcut agreement on the meaning of Leadership for all circumstances. (p.15). In
an attempt to resolve the discrepancy of definitions, Chemers (1997)
developed what he believed to be an umbrella definition of Leadership that
would earn the acceptance of a majority of theorists and researchers.
Chemers definition describes leadership as a process of social influence in
which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the
accomplishment of common task..
In the literature, leadership has been a subject of interest since the 18th
century. However according to Chemers (1997), leadership had not been
scientifically studied until the early 20th century .Bass (1981) contended that
early theorists attempted to identify leadership through a theoretical approach.
He continued with this analysis to suggest that researchers failed to develop
sufficient theories because they could not consider the interactions between
individuals and situational variables. Bass compared early researchers on
leadership to their recent counter parts, concluding that the former tried to
develop comprehensive theories with theoretical bases and not on empirical
research.
24
In considering the differences between a manager and leader, many scholars

agree to differences, but widely disagree on what the differences are. Schon
(1986) argued that leadership and management are not synonymous terms. It
is possible, Schon argued, to be a leader without being a manager and also to
be a manager without being a leader. According to Schon (1986), managers
are generally expected not only top manage, but also to lead. He suggested
that they should be criticized if they fail to do both. Davis and Newstrom
(1985) viewed leadership as a part of management. They argued that
managers are concerned with planning and organizing activities while leaders
are involved in influencing others to enthusiastically pursue defined objectives
(p. 158). Davis and Newstorm (1985) suggested that excellent managers are
also expected to exhibit strong leadership qualities. In this same vein Battern
(1989) distinguished between a manager and a leader by saying that
managers push and direct while leaders pull and expect. Bass (1985) argued
that leadership is not only management nor is management only leadership.
Finally, Hunt (1991) asserted that the difference between a manager and a
leader is very similar to the transformational/transactional leadership
differences which will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections.
2.1 Theories and Background of Leadership

In studying leadership, scholars and theorists have developed many different
theories and approaches in their attempts to explain leadership. It has been
noted that until the 20th century, research on leadership was not based on
scientific inquiry (Chemers, 1997).The following sections include a review of
the most popular theories and approaches to leadership.
25
The Great Man Theory

Early research on leadership attempted to identify those traits which
differentiated great persons in history from the general masses (Stogdill,
1974). The concern of 18th and 19th century philosophers focused on great
men rather than on situations (Spotts,1964).The Great Man Theory assumes
that leaders have unique qualities not found amongst masses. It also
assumes that leaders are born, not made. (Kolb et al., p.239). This theoretical
perspective is considered to be the simplest, oldest, and most widely held
notion of effective leadership. The theory ignores the past achievements of an
organization and magnifies the greatness of executives in the organization. In
other words, the theory implies that the success of an organization depends
entirely on the greatness of its executives. According to this theory, it could be
assumed that history was shaped solely through the efforts of great men such
as Moses, Churchill, and Lenin( Bass ,1981).
In his study of 14 nations over a long period of time, Woods (1913) mentioned
the influence of the man in the making of a nation. He postulated that the man
shaped the nation in accordance with his abilities. The Great Man Theory, like
others, is not without weaknesses. Among other critics, Smith (1964) criticized
the theory in several ways. First, he asserted that great leaders do not have
universal traits in common and the application of those traits also happen in
myriad ways. Second, he asserted that different traits are demanded and
valued by different societies. For time immemorial, corporations have been
enriched by such diverse traits of leaders. Smith argued further that in the
same society, different organizations demand different traits and that within an
organization different department would demand different traits.
26
Trait Theory
During the first half of the 20th century, trait theory was considered to be the
dominant theory of leadership (Chemers, 1997; Gordon, 1981).The trait
approach sought to determine the personal, psychological, and physical traits
of strong leaders.
The theory held that if leaders were endowed with superior traits or
characteristics that differentiated them from their followers, it should be
possible for these traits or characteristics to be isolated (Bass, 1981).
In a classic review of the literature on leadership, Stogdill (1948) reviewed 124
studies of leadership traits. The purpose of the review was to examine the
relationship between the traits approach and effective leadership. As a result,
Stogdill found that there were some characteristics (intelligence, physical,
social background, personality and task-related characteristics) that could be
used to distinguish leaders from non-leaders. His results revealed little or no
link between other characteristics and effective leaders. They also led to
Stogdill to the realization of the importance of situational variables in
determining effective leadership. In general, Stogdills conclusion did not
support the study of trait theory as the sole approach to leadership research.
He concluded that:
A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some
combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader
must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and
goals of the followers. Thus, leadership must be conceived in terms of the
interaction of variables which are in constant flux and change. The
27
persistence of individual patterns of human behaviour in the face of constant

situational change appears to be the primary obstacle encountered not only in
the practice of leadership, but in the selection and placement of leaders. (pp.
63-64).
The work of Stogdill and other researchers weakened the argument that trait
theory is a complete explanation of leadership. Hollander and Julian (1969)
also criticized trait theory because of its failure to determine the most
important traits that could be associated with effective leadership. In their
argument, they also posited that leadership effectiveness is not totally
dependent on personality factors and that many other factors, including
situational factors, are also important. Gordon (1981) summarized numerous
studies that placed emphasis on leadership traits, citing their inability to totally
explain leadership success. Goulder (1950) reduced the downfall of the trait
approach to two key factors. First, leadership traits that were common to all
good leaders could not be identified. Secondly, it could not be documented
that leaders possess a set of characteristics that are not also possessed by
followers.
The numerous shortcomings of the trait approach led many researchers to try
to find a better explanation of leadership ability (Griffin, 1990). Consequently,
in the early 1950s, researchers had changed their focus from studying the
personal characteristics of leaders to the study of leaders observable
behaviours (Schermerhorn et al.,1982). Even so; this shift in the focus of
research did not lead to the complete demise of the trait theory school. The
theory is still considered and applied in research in the 1990s (Bryman, 1996).
28
Behavioural Theory
During the 1950s, once researchers observed that the trait theory was not an
adequate approach to explain leadership effectiveness, they started to focus
on behavioural traits of leaders. Specifically, they began to focus on what the
leader does and how he or she does it. (Ivancevich et al.,1977, p. 277). This
approach assumed that successful leaders with a particular style of behaviour
were expected to be fruitful for leading persons and groups toward the
achievement of specific goals, which consequently led to high productivity and
morale (Ansari, 1990). The behavioural approach simply aimed to identify
certain kinds of behaviours that leaders exhibit and to determine the effects of
such behaviours on subordinates. A composite of these behaviours is referred
to as leadership style. Ultimately, researchers were able to isolate two
contrasting styles of the behaviours of leaders, variously called initiating
structure versus consideration, autocratic versus democratic, task-oriented
versus socio-emotional, or production-cantered versus employee- centred(
Trice et al., 1993).
Robbins (1994) observed that behavioural style was the focus of a number of
studies in the decade of the 1950s. The following sections include reviews of
the more popular studies that were conducted at Ohio State University and
the University of Michigan. The Managerial Grid developed by Blake and
Mouton is also included.
The Ohio State University Studies
By the late 1940s, some of the most widely known studies had been
conducted by researchers at Ohio State University (OSU). The purpose of
29
their studies was to determine the types of behaviours leaders display and to
determine the effects of leadership style on work-group performance and
satisfaction (Fleishman, 1957). At the beginning, researchers developed a list
of more than 1,000 leadership behaviours.
By using statistical analyses, this list was eventually narrowed into two
categories, initiating structure and consideration (Robbins, 1994).Initiating
structure refers to the behaviour that is concerned with defining and
organizing the work, work relationships and goals. Consideration refers to the
behaviour that is concerned with mutual trust, respect, and rapport between
the leader and his subordinates. A leader of the consideration category was
described as one who frequently takes care of the needs of subordinates. A
leader of the consideration category was described as one who frequently
takes care of the needs of subordinates. A leader of the consideration
category was described as one who frequently takes care of the needs of
subordinates.
A leader in the initiating category was described as one who was frequently
concerned with structure, task, and routine (Reitz, 1981). In these studies of
the behaviours of leaders, researchers at OSU could not adequately identify
the most effective leadership style. Moreover, the belief that a high
consideration and a high initiating structure lead to effective leadership could
not be proved true in all studies. The results varied, and no single style
emerged as the best.
As a result, this approach also received much criticism from researchers in
the field. However, despite obvious weaknesses, the importance of these
efforts should not be diminished. The contributions of OSU provided
30
significant building blocks in the evolution of a theory that allowed for

describing the behaviours of leaders. Indeed, these studies served as the
foundation upon which later research was built (Ivancevich et al., 1977).
University of Michigan Studies
At the same time that the OSU researchers were conducting studies in
leadership, other studies on the same topic were in progress at the University
of Michigan (UM). The studies at UM sought to identify styles of leadership
that resulted in increased work-group performance and satisfaction. Similar to
OSU, the UMs researchers developed two distinct styles of leadership
labelled as production-centred and employee-centered leadership styles
(Ansari, 1990).
The Michigan studies revealed that leaders with a production-centered
leadership style emphasized close supervision, legitimate and coercive
power, routine, and performance. This style was viewed as similar to the OSU
dimension of initiating structure. Leaders with an employee-centered
leadership style were described as more concerned about their subordinates
as people. These leaders recognized the needs of followers, such as welfare,
advancement, and growth. Similarly, the OSU dimension of consideration
described like behaviours (Ivancevich et al., 1977).University of Michigan
researchers concluded that the employee-oriented leadership style would lead
to higher productivity and higher job satisfaction and that the productionoriented leadership style would lead to lower productivity and lower job
satisfaction (Robbins,1994). As with their precursors, these studies were not
above criticism. From these studies, another branch of leadership research
emerged-situational theories.
31
Managerial Grid
Another influential behavioural approach to leadership/management is the
Managerial Grid developed by Blake and Mouton (1964).
Figure 2.1 : The Managerial Grid : Blake and Mouton
Source : The New Managerial Grid, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, Houston:
Gulf Publishing Company,1978, 11
This model focuses on task (production) and people orientations of managers,
and combinations between the two extremes. This grid is acknowledged as a
balanced one denoting dimensions of managerial responsibility. A grid with
32
concern for production on the horizontal axis and concern for people on the
vertical axis plots five basic management/leadership styles. The first number
refers to a leader's production or task orientation and the second, to people or
employee orientation. It was proposed that Task Management = Team
Management - a high concern for both employees and production - is the
most effective type of leadership behaviour.
Situational Leadership Style Theories
In the 1960s, behavioural theories were found to be insufficient approaches
for studying leadership (Ivancevich et al., 1977). By this time, researchers had
come to recognize that situational factors such as characteristics of leaders
and subordinates, the nature of the task, and group characteristics must be
considered in the study of leadership effectiveness (Ansari, 1990). The
implication was that the determination of successful leadership behaviour
depended on the situation (Schermerhorn et al.,1982). Situational or
contingency theories held that there was no universal leadership behaviour
that could be applied to all situations. The current review will highlight the
main contingency theories: Fiedlers Contingency Theory, Path-Goal Theory,
and the Vroom-Yetton Model.
Fiedlers Contingency Theory
The first comprehensive contingency leadership theory was developed by
Fred Fiedler. The basic tenet of the theory is that group effectiveness is
dependent upon the proper match between the leaders personality or style
and the demands of the situation. The model further suggested that taskoriented and employee-oriented were the two major styles of leadership. To
33
determine whether the leader was task-oriented or employee oriented, Fiedler

developed an instrument called the Least-Preferred Co-worker (LPC)
Questionnaire (Fiedler, 1967). To arrive at an LPC score, the leader is asked
to think of the person with whom he or she has worked least well in
accomplishing some task, using a series of bipolar adjectives rated on an 8point scale (e.g., friendly-unfriendly, pleasant-unpleasant). A high LPC leader
who describes his least preferred co-worker in relatively positive concepts is
people-motivated. A low LPC leader who uses relatively negative concepts is
task-motivated (Siegel & Lane, 1982). According to Fiedler, leaders who are
characterized as task-oriented will be effective in favourable and unfavourable
situations. Also, Fiedler assumes that employee-oriented leaders will be more
effective in situations of moderate favourability than in situations at either
extreme. Favourableness was defined by Fiedler as the degree to which the
situation enabled the leader to exert influence over his group. According to
this definition, situational favourableness consists of three elements: (1)
affective leader-member relations, which refers to the degree of personal
relationship between the leader and group members; (2) task structure, which
refers to the extent to which the task requirements are clear and spelled out;
and (3) leader position power, which refers to the degree to which the leader
has authority to reward or to punish followers (Fiedler, 1967). Bryman (1996)
pointed out that Fiedler viewed these elements as changeable and viewed a
persons personality as an unchangeable factor. Therefore, the theory
resolved that the work situation must be changed to fit the leader rather than
the opposite.
34
Although many researchers considered the work of Fiedler as a major

contribution to leadership studies, the theory faced criticism (Behling &
Schriesheim, 1976).For one thing, the validity of the model was questioned.
The inconsistency between the results and the model was noted (Bryman,
1986).
Path-Goal Theory
Path- Goal theory is a contingency model of leadership developed by Robert
House and based on the works of the expectancy theory of motivation and on
the work of the OSU group. This theory was promoted as an approach that
could explain how a leader might successfully enhance the satisfaction and
performance of his subordinates. The term path-goal is used to indicate the
role of a leader in making an effective link between the followers personal
goals and the work goals (House, 1971).
The theory was built upon two propositions. The first proposition was that the
behaviour of the leader would be acceptable and satisfying to subordinates to
the extent that the subordinates perceived it as either an immediate source of
satisfaction or as an instrumental source to future satisfaction. The second
proposition was that the behaviour of the leader would be motivational to the
extent that (a) it made the satisfaction of subordinates contingent upon
effective performance and (b) that it complemented the work environment of
subordinates by providing guidance, clear direction, support, and reward for
effective performance. For the purpose of testing these propositions, House
devised four types of leader behaviour: (a) directive, (b) supportive, (c)
35
achievement-oriented, and (d) participative. According to House, the use of

any of these types of leadership would be situation-dependent.
The Vroom Yetton Model
Vroom and Yetton (1973) developed a model that was designed to help a
leader through a rational process to choose an appropriate leadership style
that fits with a given situation. The basic premise of the model is that the
degree to which the leader should share decision- making power with
subordinates depends on the situation. The model identified five leadership
styles, each of which reflects a behavioural option for the leader:
AI: The leader makes the decision alone.
AII: The leader asks for information from subordinates but makes the decision
alone. Subordinates may or may not be informed about the situation.
CI: The leader shares the situation with the individual. The leader asks
subordinates for information and evaluation, but the leader alone makes the
decision.
CII: The leader and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the situation, but
the leader makes the decision.
GII: The leader and subordinates meet as a group to discuss the situation,
and the group (which includes the leader) makes the decision.
Vroom and Yetton (1973) argued that the ultimate effectiveness of decisions
could be judged on the following factors: (1) the quality or rationality of the
decision, (2) the acceptance of the decision by employees, and (3) the
amount of time required to make the decision. The model has been criticized
as complex and cumbersome (Field, 1979). However, the work of Vroom and
36
Yetton has been supported by some researchers and considered as a useful

approach of leadership (Landy, 1985; Schermerhorn, Jr., 1982).
There is also a strong linkage of Transformational Leadership to Maslows
hierarchy of Needs. Transformational Leadership would fit into the higher
levels, as it requires a high level of authenticity, self-esteem and self
actualization to successfully be a Transformational Leader. Ideals are higher
in Maslow's Hierarchy, which does imply that lower concerns such as health
and security must be reasonably safe before people will pay serious attention
to the higher possibilities.
Figure 2.2 : Maslows Hierarchy of Needs
Source : www.wikipedia.org
Using social and spiritual values as a motivational lever is very powerful as
they are both hard to deny and also give people an uplifting sense of being
connected.
37
2.2 Recent Theories of Leadership Styles

A new theory of leadership emerged in the 1970s. Transactional and
Transformational leadership styles were first introduced by Burns (1978). A
few years later, Bass (1985) expanded the theory and came up with the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The full range of leadership
models that was introduced by Avolio and Bass (1991) gave more
advancement to the theory. This theoretical model included three styles of
leadership: (a) transactional, (b) transformational, and (c) Laissez- Faire.
According to Hartog et al. (1997), Basss theory or the new leadership
approach .integrates ideas from trait, style, and contingency approaches of
leadership and also incorporates and builds on work of sociologists such as
Weber (1947) and political scientists such as Burns (1978).(P.19).The three
styles of leadership mentioned above are essential elements in this research
and are discussed in greater detail below.
Transactional and Transformational leadership Styles
In distinguishing between transactional and transformational leadership.
Burns (1978) noted that transactional leadership refers to a type of leadership
that is based on an exchange relationship between leader and follower. Burns
felt that this exchange could take different economic, political, or
psychological forms. Such leadership, he argued, does not bring leaders and
followers together to pursue higher purposes. According to Bass (1990),
transactional focus on the clarification of task requirements and the
specification of contingent rewards. Transformational leaders interact with
their followers in such a way that both leader and followers raise each other to
38
higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1978).In Leadership and

Performance beyond Expectations, Bass (1985) expanded the theory of
transactional and transformational leadership. While Burns (1978) had
focused on the application of the theory in political setting, Bass (1985) was
concerned with its application to business organisations. According to Bass
(1985), transformational leaders are those who motivate followers to do more
than originally was expected. That could be achieved, Bass argued, through
anyone of the following steps: (1) increasing followers awareness and
consciousness of the importance of designated outcomes and the steps that
lead to these outcomes, (2) encouraging followers to transcend their own self
interests, and (3) expanding or altering followers needs and wants according
to Maslows Hierarchy of Needs .In distinguishing between the Burns and
Bass theories of transformational leadership, Carlson and Perrewe (1995)
stated that: The main difference between these two theories was that Burns
restricts this type of leadership only to leaders who appeal to positive moral
values. On the other hand, Bass argues that a transformational leader is one
who increases commitment regardless of the final effect on the follower.
Regardless, when transformational leadership is enacted, members of
organisations no longer seek merely self-interest, but that which is beneficial
to the organisation as a whole.(p.832)
Fiedler and House (1988) proposed that transformational theories seek to
address the actions of leaders that cause followers to change their values,
needs, goals, and aspirations. In making the distinction between transactional
and transformational leadership forms, Burns (1978) viewed these leadership
forms as independent dimensions. In other words, Burns (1978) viewed
39
Transactional and Transformational forms of leadership as polar constructs

while Bass (1985) viewed them as complementary constructs. Bass viewed
successful leaders as both transactional and transformational who differ in
degrees. In his conclusion, Bass expressed the notion that .to be transactional
is the easy way out; to be transformational is the more difficult path to pursue.
Transactional behaviours involve structuring performance environment to
assist subordinates in achieving organizational objectives and receiving
rewards, while transformational behaviours focus on creating changes in
followers` values, self-perceptions, and psychological needs (Fein et al,
2010). Generally speaking,
studies
conducted
on
transactional and
transformational leadership have added important value into the nature of

leadership effectiveness.
As a pointer for differentiation, transactional leadership is a process in which
the relationship leader-follower is reduced to simple exchange of a certain
quantity of work for an adequate price. Contrary to this, transformational
leadership is far more complex process, the realization of which requires more
visionary and more inspiring figures (Bowditch and Buono, 1990).
Different empirical studies have been conducted to support the effects of
transformational leaders behaviours. A previous study showed that
transformational leadership is positively related to employee satisfaction and
to job performance (Bass, 1995). Ozaralli (2003) found that transformational
leadership contributes to the prediction of subordinates self-reported
empowerment.
Transformational
leadership
enhances
organizational
citizenship behaviours (Koh et al, 1995) and employees commitment (Barling

et al, 1996). In addition, transformational leadership mediates the relationship
40
between leaders emotional intelligence and group cohesiveness (Wang and

Huang, 2009).
Transactional Leadership Style Dimensions
Bass (1989) suggested that transactional leadership involves two distinct
dimensions:
(1) the use of contingent rewards, which implies that leaders reward followers
in exchange for attaining the specified performance levels; and (2)
management by exception (MBE), which has the dimensions of Active and
Passive. In Active MBE, leaders monitor their followers performances and
take corrective actions as necessary. In Passive MBE, leaders do not
intervene until mistakes or problems occur, then leaders take corrective
actions.
Transformational Leadership Style Dimensions
In 1995, a new version of the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
was developed to measure transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire
styles of leadership. For this version, Bass and Avolio (1995) listed five
dimensions that refer to transformational leadership characteristics. The term
transformational leadership was first coined by Downton, and then emerged
as an important approach to leadership research by Burns. Based on these
early works, several theories of transformational leadership were generated to
advance this new leadership concept. These works broadened the traditional
concept of leadership as a relationship of economic exchange that offers
rewards or compensation for a desired behaviour by viewing leadership as a
change process and by exploring the impact of leader behaviour on followers
41
values, beliefs and higher-order needs. Specifically, Bass described

transformational leadership as leader behaviours that stimulate and inspire
followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes by raising the level of motivation
and morality in both themselves and their followers. Transformational leaders
are effective in promoting organizational commitment by aligning goals and
values of the follower, the group, the leader, and the organization. Its strong,
positive effects on followers attributes and commitment will then motivate
followers to reach their fullest potential and exceed expected performance.
Bass and his colleagues further conceptualized transformational leadership
into four components: idealized influence; inspirational motivation; intellectual
stimulation; and individualized consideration. Each of the components helps
build followers commitment in different ways. The following texts discuss
these components and their impact on followers organization commitment in
detail.
Idealized influence, also called charisma, describes transformational

leaders who behave as role models for their followers. Followers
usually perceive these leaders as having extraordinary capability,
persistence and determination, as well as high standards of moral and
ethical conduct. They deeply admire, respect and trust these leaders,
and thus identify with leaders goals, interests and values.
Inspirational motivation occurs when leaders motivate and inspire

those around them by providing challenges and meaning to their work.
They provide visions of what is possible and how to attain these goals.
More specifically, these leaders get followers involved in envisioning
the future, and then they promote positive expectations about what
42
needs to be done and demonstrate commitment to the shared vision.

With this dimension, leaders are able to promote followers emotional
commitment and excitement to a mission.
Intellectual stimulation encourages followers to be creative and

innovative. In practice, transformational leaders help others to think
about old problems in new ways, and to continuously question and
develop their own beliefs, assumptions and values. These leaders also
jointly work with their followers to deal with problems in innovative
ways. The pride in actions of all those involved and joint success in
overcoming obstacles will reinforce organizational commitment of
followers.
Individualized consideration means understanding and sharing others

concern and developmental needs, and treating each individual
follower uniquely. Leaders act as coaches and advisors to not only
identify and satisfy each individual followers current needs, but also to
attempt to expand and elevate the needs in order to assist followers
become fully actualized. By emphasizing on followers personal career
needs and providing them with a sense of increased competence to
carry out duties, leaders could further enhance followers commitment.
Transformational
leaders
have
charisma,
inspiration
and
intellectual
simulation, inspiration and intellectual simulation (Conger, 1999). Charisma

generates the pride, faith and respect that leaders encourage their workers to
have in themselves, their leaders and their technological organization, while
inspiration is the ability to motivate followers through communication of hightechnological expectations (Garcia-Morales, Matias-Reche and Hurtado43
Torres, 2008). Intellectual simulation refers to the leaders behaviour that

leads to promoting employees' intelligence, knowledge and learning so that
they can be innovative.
Transformational leader raises aspiration and shifts people and organizational
systems
into
new,
high-performance
patterns.
The
presence
of
transformational leadership is reflected in followers who are enthusiastic

about the leader and her or his ideas (Schermerhorn, 2008). Furthermore,
transformational leaders inspire their followers to think more than their own
aims and interests and to focus on greater team, organizational, national, and
also global objectives (Jandaghi et al, 2009).
While transactional and transformational leaders were described as active
leaders (Yammarino & Bass, 1990), laissez- faire leaders were viewed as
inactive. Laissez- faire leaders are characterized by avoiding responsibility
and decisionmaking.
Although such a style under certain conditions (for example, with a group of
scientists or college professors) will be effective (Sutermeister, 1969;
Williams, 1978), it was thought that this particular style of leadership
indicated, in fact, the absence of leadership. Therefore, this type of leadership
was considered to be an inappropriate way to lead (Hartlog et al., 1997).
Laissez-Faire Leadership Style
While transactional and transformational leaders were described as active
leaders (Yammarino & Bass, 1990), laissez-faire leaders were viewed as
inactive. Laissez-faire leaders are characterized by avoiding responsibility and
decisionmaking.
44
Although such a style under certain conditions (for example, with a group of
scientists or college professors) will be effective (Sutermeister, 1969;
Williams, 1978), it was thought that this particular style of leadership
indicated, in fact, the absence of leadership. Therefore, this type of leadership
was considered to be an inappropriate way to lead (Hartlog et al., 1997).
Summary of Leadership Style Theories
Since the 18th century, leadership has been a subject of interest. However,
the field of leadership had not been scientifically studied until the early 20th
century. Early research on leadership attempted to identify leadership through
a theoretical approach. The Great Man Theory assumes that leaders are
endowed with unique qualities not to be found among the masses. The trait
theory, which was considered to be the dominate theory of leadership during
the first half of the 20th century, sought to determine the personal,
psychological, and physical traits of strong leaders. During the 1950s, the
theoretical approach was abandoned due to its inability to explain leadership
effectiveness. As a result, the behavioural theory represented by the studies
of Ohio State University and the University of Michigan had taken place. The
behavioural approach simply aimed to identify certain kinds of behaviours that
leaders exhibit and to determine the effects of such behaviours on
subordinates. In the 1960s, leadership researchers focused their attention on
the situational factors and their effects on leadership effectiveness. Situational
or contingency theories held that there was no universal leadership behaviour
that could be applied to all situations. The full range of leadership that
included three styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) is a
recent development in the field. This approach integrated ideas from trait,
45
behavioural, and situational theories and built on these. Transformational

leaders inspire followers to rise above self-interest for the greater good of the
group and to do more than originally was expected. Transactional leaders
focus on the clarification of task requirements and the specification of
contingent rewards.
Theoretical Framework on Leadership Style
The broad fields of this research are Transformational and Transactional
leadership. The transformational leadership has five dimensions or factors
that build the subject and transactional leadership has 3 dimensions or factors
that build the subject .(The five factors of transformational leadership styles
are: Idealized influence {attributes and behaviours}, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, encourage innovative thinking and individualized
consideration). (The three factors of transactional leadership are: MBE-A:
Management-By-Exception:
Active,
MBE-P:
Management-By-Exception:
Passive and CR: Contingent Reward).

The dependent variable .employee commitment. relies on the factors of
transformational and transactional leadership, which are the independent
variables in the Research Study. In todays competitive world, it is difficult for
organization to compete or even to survive without satisfying the most valued
asset of the organization and deriving commitment of the employees towards
their Leader and organization. Since yet more emphasis has been given to
the outcome of transformational and transactional leadership and less to the
demographic variables which plays the role of another set of independent
variables. Hence, investigation of subordinates commitment with the leader
46
and in turn towards the organization from the perspectives of these two
leadership styles is central to this research.
Figure 2.3 : The Leadership Challenge Model
Source: Best selling book, The Leadership Challenge, by James M. Kouzes

and Barry Z. Posner
2.3 Employee Commitment

No organizations in todays competitive world can perform at peak levels
unless each employee is committed to the organisations objectives and work
as an effective team member. It is no longer good enough to have employees
who come to work faithfully every day and do their jobs independently.
Employees now have to think like entrepreneurs while working in teams, and
have to prove their worth. However they also want to be a part of successful
organisation which provides a good income and the opportunity for
development and secured employment.
In todays workplace, employees face more ambiguity in their daily activities
and decreased job security (Bergmann, Lester, De Meuse and Grahn, 2000).
With no assurance of continued employment, workers have now raised their
47
expectations in other areas. For instance, the employees expect employer to

demonstrate their commitment in terms of pleasant working conditions,
access to training and development, provision of a safe working environment
and a balance between work and employees commitment outside the
workplace.
Organizations are faced with ever increasing competition and as they prepare
for new challenges, one of the key components of survival is maintaining and
upgrading the organizations ability to use human resources effectively and
efficiently. According to Katz (1964), employee behaviour essential for
organizational effectiveness includes employees (1) entering and remaining
with the organisation, (2) carrying out specific role requirements and (3)
engaging in innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond role
prescriptions. The appointment of good workers is thus critical, but of even
greater significance is the organisations ability to create a committed
workforce.
Hence the need for managers to understand the concept of commitment
what it is how it operates, and most importantly, which behaviours are
displayed by employees committed to the organisation?
The importance of employee commitment is quite evident if one considers
prior research into the relationship between commitment and job satisfaction
(Bateman and Organ, 1983), trust in and loyalty to the leader (Deluga, 1994)
and perception of supervisors fairness (Nierhoff & Moorman 1993). It is an
important concept in the management and behavioural sciences. It is
concerned with the relationship between an organization and its employees.
48
The importance of organizational commitment of employees refers to its

presumed relationship with important organizational outcomes such as
turnover, absenteeism, and performance (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).
Committed employees are expected to identify with and to feel loyal toward
their organization; to feel the importance of the agencys values, goals, and
mission; and also to feel that their job responsibilities are compatible with their
personal values and ethics (Romzak, 1990).
It has been reported that .Organizational commitment should be of great
interest to managers, because employees with strong commitment tend to be
highly productive and loyal, while those with low levels tend to be disengaged
and are prone to attrite, absent frequently, fall prey to stress-induced health
issues and other psychological workplace problems. In addition to all of this,
committed employees are thought to act without basing their actions on any
calculation of what they have invested.
Committed employees are also thought to believe that the values they share
with the organization will provide them with a sense of personal satisfaction
(Romzek,1990). Buchanan (1974a) viewed commitment as .no less than a
precondition for successful social organization. (p.340). In general, for both
individuals and agencies, employee commitment is believed to be a positive
factor (Romzek, 1990).
Many authors associate the development of organisational commitment with
variables such as the personal characteristics of the employee, organisational
characteristics and work characteristics (Mowday et al.,1979; Nijhof et al.,
1992).
The
influence
of
personal
characteristics
on
organisational
commitment has been extensively studied with the focus on demographic

49
variables such as age, gender, occupational status, length of service, salary,

internal promotion period, marital status, educational level (Nijhof et al .,1992).
The organisational characteristics that have been studied include leadership
and management style and various Demographic details. In our attempt to
understand organisational commitment, we need to understand how these
various variables fit together and lead to the development of organisational
commitment.
In the literature, there is no universal definition of organizational commitment
of employees. Researchers with different theoretical perspectives have
defined the concept of employee commitment in various ways. Buchanan
(1974b) observed that there is little consensus about the definition of
commitment or its measurement.
Morrow (1983) reviewed the literature on commitment that has been written
since 1965 and found more than 25 employee commitment concepts and
measures. Grouping these concepts and measures, Morrow discerned five
distinct types: commitment to work, the organization, the job, the career, and
the union. The present study was concerned with only commitment to the
organization.
Organizational researchers agree that a consensus has not yet been reached
over the definition of organizational commitment of employees (Scholl, 1981;
Benkhoff, 1997a; Mowday 1998; Suliman and Isles, 2000a, 2000b; Zangaro,
2001). Scholl (1981) indicates that the way employee commitment is defined
depends on the approach to commitment that one is adhering to. Accordingly
employee commitment is defined either as an employee attitude or as force
that binds an employee to an organization. According to Suliman and Isles
50
(2000a), there are currently four main approaches to the conceptualization

and exploring organizational commitment. There is the attitudinal approach,
the behavioural approach, the normative approach and the multi-dimensional
approach.
Mowday et al. (1979) pointed out that most researchers defined
organizational commitment in terms of either a behavioural perspective or an
attitudinal perspective.
Alpander (1990) distinguished between the attitudinal and behavioural
approaches to commitment and described how commitment has been viewed
differently from the two perspectives. The former, Alpander (1990) argued,
views commitment as an internal state, but the latter views it as .the state of
being bound to the organization by personal investment. (p.53). Mowday et al.
(1982) proposed that a cyclical relationship exists between the two types in
which commitment attitudes lead to committing behaviours which, in turn,
reinforce commitment attitudes. An important observation is that, throughout
the literature, commitment has been viewed as a more active and positive
attitude toward the organization from both perspectives (Johnston et al.,
1990).This study focused on employee commitment as an attitude.
The attitudinal approach views commitment largely as an employee attitude or
more specifically as a set of behavioural intentions. The most widely accepted
attitudinal conceptualization of organizational commitment is that by Porter
and his colleagues who define organizational commitment is the relative
strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particular
organization (Mowday et al.,1979).They mention three characteristics of
employee commitment: (1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the
51
organizations goals and values, (2) A willingness to exert a considerable

effort on behalf of the organization and (3) a strong intent or desire to remain
with the organization. Within this approach, the factors associated with
commitment include positive work experiences; personal characteristics and
job characteristics while the outcomes include increased performance,
reduced absenteeism and reduced employee turnover.
The second approach refers to organizational commitment of employees
behaviour (Suliman and Isles, 2000b; Zangaro, 2001). The focus of research
according to the behavioural approach is on the overt manifestations of
commitment. The Behavioural approach emphasizes the view that an
employee continues his/her employment with an organization because
investments such as time spent in the organization, friendships formed within
the organization and pension benefits, tie the employee to the organization.
Thus an employee becomes committed to an organization because of sunk
costs. that is too costly to lose. Beckers (1960) side bet theory forms the
foundation of this approach. According to him employee commitment is
continued association with an organization that occurs because of an
employees decision after evaluating the costs of leaving the organization. He
emphasizes that this commitment only happens once the employee has
recognised the cost associated with discontinuing his association with the
organization. In a similar vein, Kanter (1968) defined organizational
commitment as profit. associated with continued participation and a .cost.
associated with leaving. That is, an employee stands to either profit or lose
depending on whether he/she chooses to remain with the organization.
Whereas the attitudinal approach uses the concept of commitment to explain
52
performance and membership, the behavioural school uses the concept of

.investments. as .a force that ties employees to organizations., to explain
organizational commitment (Scholl, 1981).
The Normative approach is the third approach, which argues that congruency
between employee goals and values and organizational aims make the
employee feel obligated to his/her organization (Becker, Randall, & Reigel
1995).From this point of view, organizational commitment has been defined
as .the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets
organizational goals and interests. (Weiner, 1982).
The last approach, the multidimensional approach, is relatively new. It
assumes that organizational commitment is more complex that emotional
attachment, perceived costs or moral obligations. This approach suggests that
organizational commitment develops because of the interaction of all these
three components. Several studies according to Suliman and Isles (2000b)
have contributed to this new conceptualization of organizational commitment.
They credit Kelman (1958) as the earliest contributor to the multidimensional
approach. Elman lay down the foundation for the multidimensional approach
when he linked compliance, identification and internalisation to attitudinal
change. Another earlier contributor is Etzioni (1961) who, as cited by Zangaro
(2001), describe organizational commitment in terms of three dimensions;
moral involvement, calculative involvement and alimentative involvement, with
each of these dimensions representing an individuals response to
organizational powers. Moral involvement is defined as a positive orientation
based on an employees internalisation and identification with organisational
goals.
53
Calculative involvement is defined as either a negative or a positive

orientation of low intensity that develops due to an employee receiving
inducements from the organization that match his/her contributions. Alienative
involvement on the other hand is described as a negative attachment to the
organization. In this situation, individuals perceive a lack of control or of the
ability to change their environment and therefore remain in the organization
only because they feel they have no other options. Etzionis three dimensions
incorporate
the
attitudinal,
behavioural
and
normative
aspects
of
organizational commitments of employees. OReilly and Chatman (1986) also

support the notion that organizational commitment should be seen as the
multi-dimensional construct. They developed their multi-dimensional approach
based on the assumption that commitment represents an attitude toward the
organization, and the fact that various mechanisms can lead to attitudes
development of attitudes. Taking Kelmans (1958) work as their basis, they
argue that commitment could take three distinct forms that they called
compliance, identification and internalisation. They believed that compliance
would occur when attitudes and corresponding behaviours are adopted in
order to gain specific rewards.
Identification would occur when an individual accepts influence to establish or
maintain a satisfying relationship. Lastly, internalization would occur when the
attitudes and behaviours that one is encouraged to adopt are congruent with
ones own values.
The most popular multi-dimensional approach to employee commitment is
that of Meyer and his colleagues. In 1984, Meyer and Allen, based on
Beckers
side-bet
theory,
introduced
the
dimension
of
continuance
54
commitment to the already existing dimension of affective commitment. As a

result, organizational commitment of employees was regarded as a bidimensional concept that included an attitudinal aspect as well as behavioural
aspect. In 1990 Allen and Meyer added a third component, normative
commitment to their two dimensions of organizational commitment. They
proposed that commitment as a psychological attachment may take the
following three forms: the affective, continuance and normative forms.
Meyer and Allen (1984) defined affective commitment as .an employees
organization, continuance commitment as .commitment based on the costs
that employees associate with leaving the organization., and normative
commitment as .an employees feelings of obligation to remain with the
organization.. Each of these three dimensions represents a possible
description of an individuals attachment to an organization.
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) have pointed out that there are differences in
the dimensions, forms or components of commitment that have been
described
in
the
different
multi-dimensional
conceptualizations
of
organizational commitment. They attribute these differences to the different

motives and strategies involved in the development of these multidimensional
frameworks. These included attempts to account for empirical findings (Angle
&
Perry
1981),
distinguished
among
earlier
one
dimensional
conceptualizations (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Jaros, Koehler & Sincich, 1993),
ground commitment within an established theoretical context (O Reilly and
Chatman, 1986), or some combination of these (Mayer & Schoorman 1992).
55
Mowday et al. (1979) pointed out that most researchers defined employee
commitment in terms of either a behavioural perspective or an attitudinal
perspective.
Alpander (1990) distinguished between the attitudinal and behavioural
approaches to commitment and described how commitment has been viewed
differently from the two perspectives. Mowday et al. (1982) proposed that a
cyclical relationship exists between the two types in which commitment
attitudes lead to committing behaviours which, in turn, reinforce commitment
attitudes. An important observation is that, throughout the literature,
commitment has been viewed as a more active and positive attitude toward
the organization from both perspectives (Johnston et al., 1990). This study
focused on employee commitment as an attitude.
Organisational commitment researchers can be divided into two major camps,
those who view organizational commitment as an attitude and those who view
it as behaviour (Meyer & Allen 1991; Jaros et al., 1993). Meyer and Allen
(1991) regard attitudinal commitment as the way people feel and think about
their organisations, while behavioural commitment reflects the way individuals
have become locked into the organisation. The attitudinal approach regards
commitment as an employee attitude that reflects the nature and quality of the
linkage between an employee and an organisation (Meyer and Allen, 1991).
Dimensions of Employee Commitment
Among the proponents of attitudinal approach, researchers have started to
view employee commitment as a multi dimensional concept that has different
factors associated with it, outcomes and implications for human resources
56
management (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Meyer and his colleagues (Allen and
Meyer, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer and Allen 1997; Meyer and
Herscovitch, 2001) have been at the forefront of the multi-dimensional
approach. Their three component model of organisational commitment
incorporates affective, continuance, and normative as the three dimensions of
organisational commitment.
Affective Commitment
Allen and Meyer (1990) refer to affective commitment as the employees
organisation. Affective commitment involves three aspects: (1) the formation
of an emotional attachment to an organization, (2) identification with, (3) and
the desire to maintain organisational membership. Allen and Meyer (1990)
argue that an individual will develop emotional attachment when he/she
identifies with the goals of the organisation and is willing to assist the
organisation in achieving these goals. They further explain that identification
with an organisation happens when the employees own values are congruent
with the organisational values and the employee is able to internalise the
values and goals of the organisation. With this, there is a psychological
identification with and a pride of association with the organisation.
Jaros et al. (1993) suggest that affective commitment is the most widely
discussed form of psychological attachment to an employing organisation.
This could probably be because affective commitment is associated with
desirable organisational outcome.
57
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) report that affective commitment has been
found to correlate with a wide range of outcomes such as turnover,
absenteeism, job performance and organisational citizenship behaviour.
Continuance Commitment
The next dimension of employee commitment is continuance commitment
(Allen and Meyer, 1990) which is based on Beckers (1960) side bet theory.
The theory speaks of that as an individual remains in the employment of an
organisation for longer periods; they accumulate an investment, which
becomes costly to lose the longer the individual is attached to the
organisation. These investments includes time, job, efforts, organisational
specific skills that might not be transferable or greater cost of leaving the
organisation that discourage them from seeking alternative employment, work
friendships and political deals.
Allen and Meyer (1990) describe continuance commitment as a form of
psychological attachment to an employing organisation that reflects the
employees perception of the loss he/she would suffer if they were to leave
the organisation. They explain that continuance commitment involves
awareness on the employees part of the costs associated with leaving the
organisation. This then forms the employees primary link to the organisation
and his/her decision to remain with the organisation is an effort to retain the
benefits accrued.
Romzek (1990) describes this type of attachment as a transactional
attachment. He argues that employees calculate their investment in the
organisation based on what they have put into the organisation and what they
58
stand to gain if they remain with the organisation. For example, an individual
might choose not to change employers because of the time and money tied
up in an organisations retirement plan. Such an employee would feel that
he/she stands to lose too much if he/she were to leave the organisation. In
addition to the fear of losing investments, individuals develop continuance
commitment because of a perceived lack of alternatives. Allen and Meyer
(1990) and Meyer and Allen (1991) argue that such an individuals
commitment to the organisation would be based on his/her perceptions of
employment options outside the organisation. This occurs when an employee
starts to believe that his/her skills are not marketable or that he does not have
the skill required to complete for the positions in the field. Such an employee
would feel tied to the organisation. People who work in environments where
the skills and training they get are very industry specific can possibly develop
such commitment. As a result, the employee feels compelled to commit to the
organisation because of the monetary, social, psychological and other costs
associated with leaving the organisation. Unlike affective commitment which
involves emotional attachment, continuance commitment reflects a calculation
of the costs of leaving versus the benefits of staying.
Normative Commitment
The third dimension of employees commitment in an organization is
normative commitment, which reflects a feeling of obligation to continue
employment. Employees with a high level of Normative Commitment feel they
ought to remain with the organisation (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Researchers
have overlooked this view of employee commitment as relatively few studies
explicitly address normative commitment. Randall and Cote (1990) Allen and
59
Meyer (1990) and OReilly, Chatman, Caldwell (1991) are some of the few
who have attempted to differentiate normative commitment from the other
commitments of the employees organisational commitment.
Randall and Cote regard normative commitment in terms of the moral
obligation the employee develops after the organisation has invested in
him/her. They argue that when an employee starts to feel that the
organisation has spent either too much time or money developing and training
him/her, such an employee might feel an obligation to stay with the
organisation. For example, an employee whose organisation paid his tuition
while he/she is improving qualifications might believe that he or she can
reimburse the organisation by continuing to work for it. In general normative
commitment is most likely when individuals find it difficult to reciprocate the
organisations investment in them.
Antecedents of Employee Commitment
The concept of employee commitment has been conceptualized and
measured in different ways by many researchers. Many researchers on the
topic of employee commitment have used many different variables as
possible antecedents of commitment and have assigned these variables to
categories (Mowday et al., 1982).
Steers (1977) proposed a dichotomy that he believed explains antecedents
and outcomes of organisational commitment. The argument associated with
antecedents was built heavily on previous research. Steers view was that the
antecedents of commitment were the three categories of personal
characteristics, role-related characteristics, and work experiences. Mowday et
60
al. (1982), in their review of empirical studies conducted on the topic of

organisational commitment, found that most of the studies of this nature were
correlation. Mowday et al., extended the model proposed by Steers (1977)
and came up with another model.
Personal Characteristics
Many studies were concerned with the effects of various personal
characteristics on employee commitment (Angle Perry, 1981; Hrebiniak, 1974;
Mowday et al., 1982).
The effects of age, educational level, tenure, gender, race, and other
personality factors on the level of organizational commitment of employees
were examined in such studies. For example, various researchers have found
a positive impact of age and tenure on the level of commitment. The logic
behind this, positive relationship is that when the individual gets older and
remains with an organization longer, the individuals opportunities for
alternative employment tend to decrease, thereby enhancing the employees
commitment to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Mowday et al., 1982).
In contrast to age and tenure, education has been found to be inversely
related to commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982; Steers,
1977). It can be assumed that employees with higher levels of education may
have higher expectations which makes it difficult for an organization to meet
such expectations and results in less committed employees (Steers,1977).
Marital status and gender also have effects upon organizational commitment
of employees.
61
Kawakubo (1987) and Lincoln & Kalleberg (1990) argued that marital status
was found to be a significant factor in employee commitment. According to
Kawakubo, it was found that married and separated persons were committed
to organizations more than were single persons. The logic behind that could
be that married and separated persons have more responsibilities than single
persons (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990).With respect to gender, Angle and Perry
(1981) and Mathieu and Zajac (1990) found that females were more strongly
committed to their organizations than were males.
Role Related Characteristics
Mowday et al. (1982) were concerned with the relationship between job
characteristics and commitment: job scope or challenge, role conflict, and role
ambiguity. They indicated that increased job scope would lead to an increase
in commitment. Regarding role conflict and role ambiguity, Mowday et al.
reported that where there is role ambiguity and role conflict, and role
ambiguity. They indicated that increased job scope would lead to an increase
in commitment. Regarding role conflict and role ambiguity, Mowday et al.
reported that where there is role ambiguity and role conflict, employee
commitment tended to decrease. Austin and Gammon (1983) reviewed the
literature on the work experiences of academic administrators and the link to
employee commitment. They found that compensation is critical to
commitment. They stated that if administrators feel that they are not valued for
their contributions and are not rewarded to at least some reasonable degree,
their commitment may be threatened. (p.61). Occupational status has also
been identified as a significant factor in occupational commitment. Wiener and
Vardi (1980) found that employees who occupy managerial positions tend to
62
be more committed to their organizations than those who do not occupy

managerial positions. They contended that this is due to the difference in
prestige and pay among the two groups.
Structural Characteristics
Within the body of literature on organizational commitment of employees,
researchers have investigated the influence of structural characteristics on
commitment. Stevens et al. (1978) found that organization size, span of
control, union, presence, and centralization of authority were not related to
commitment. Later, Morris and Steers (1980) conducted a study to determine
what effects of structural characteristics such as formalization, functional
dependence,
supervisory
span
of
control,
span
of
subordination,
decentralization, and work group size had on commitment. They found

commitment
to
be
positively
related
to
employee
participation,
decentralization, functional dependence, and formalization. When individuals

participate at every level in the organization, their ego involvement is
enhanced which eventually leads to increased commitment. Employees who
experience greater decentralization, greater dependence on the work of
others, and greater formality of written rules and procedures were reported to
be more committed to their organizations than employees experiencing these
factors to a lesser degree (Mowday et al., 1982).
2.4 Employee Motivation

Motivation : Technically the word motivation can be traced back to the Latin
word mover which means to move. Motivation is a subroutine which begins
63
with a physiological or psychological defect or want or need that start a

manner of acting that is planned to accomplish a goal or objective.
Robbins (2007) has emphasized that employee motivation is The process
that accounts for an individuals intensity, direction, and persistence of effort
toward attaining a goal .Luthans (2005), on the other hand, fells that it is
Desires wants wishes aims goals needs drives motives and incentives.
Bartol & Martin (1994) hypothesized that it is The forces that energize
behavior, gives direction to behavior, and underlines the tendency to persist.
Williams (2009) argued that motivation is The set of forces that initiates,
directs and makes people persist in their efforts to accomplish a goal. Osborn
(2008) attributed motivation to internal factors, referring it to forces within an
individual that account for the level, direction, and persistence of effort
expended at work. George & Jones (2008) pointed to the element of
psychology by terming motivation as the sum total of The psychological
forces that determine the direction of a persons behavior in an organization, a
persons level of effort, and a persons level of persistence. Greenberg &
Baron (2009) brought in the process element by defining motivation as the
set of processes that arouse direct, and maintain human behavior toward
attaining some goals. Motivation has some micro conception of some words;
but there is a commonality in every definition like Efforts element which
describes the density or drive.
Furthermore, motivation is linked to job success, productivity, and goal
achievement (Locke, 1970; McClelland, 1985; Miner, Smith & Bracker, 1989),
and work values can influence job satisfaction (Chaves, 2001; Dibble, 1997).
64
Work motivation and work values continue to be the focus of assessment

development and research in the fields of counseling, applied psychology,
and organizational studies (Brady,2002; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Miner,
2005; Reis, 2004). Influenced by motivational theory research published since
the introduction of the Work Orientation and Values Survey (WOVS) in 2002,
the 2008 revision now includes the following motive clusters: Survival and
Safety Motives, Affiliation iDirections for Administering and Interpreting the
Work Motivation Scale Motives, Self-Esteem Motives, and Fulfilment Motives.
These motives have traditionally been presented as hierarchical (Maslow,
1943, 1970); however, Bagozzi, Bergami, and Leone (2003) proposed that the
motive network is a weak hierarchy and that the relationship schema may
not always be vertical but could be horizontal, unidirectional, bi-directional, or
even circular.
2.5 Employee Commitment within Corporate sector

From the analysis of various studies, it can be seen that the development of
commitment is dependent on several personal and organisational factors such
as Leadership, management policies and practices, Organizational Culture. In
the corporate sector, commitment of employees is closely associated with the
culture prevalent in the organisation. Hofsted (2001) narrates that for the
ultimate interpretation and adaptation of organizational culture, it is a
prerequisite to understand local traditions, management practices and human
resource development. Employee Commitment is feeling of emotional
attachment with the organisation and the job. It is a unique kind of loyalty,
identification, and involvement. In the corporate setting, such loyalty involves
feelings of attachment, which develops as individuals share values in common
65
with other members of the group. Employee commitment is a factor which is

given attention for efficiency and performance both in the public and private
sector. Bennett and Durkin (2000) stated that the negative effects associated
with a lack of employee commitment include absenteeism and turnover. As
suggested by Drucker (1999), organizations are now evolving toward
structures in which rank means responsibility but not authority, and where the
supervisors job is not to command, but to persuade. Hence, in order to be
effective, it is critical for managers to influence their subordinates, peers, and
superiors to assist and support their proposals, plans, and to motivate them to
carry out with their decisions (Blickle, 2003).
2.6 Employee Motivation within Corporate sector

Irrespective of the industry, motivation of employees is affected by variables
like organizational rewards, career development opportunities, supervisory
support, and promotion. In the current Indian corporate context, turnover
intentions depend the nature of organization practices and these practices
enhance the personal goals and motivate the work force and reduce turnover.
Huselid (1995) investigated the impact of human resource management
practices on turnover, productivity and corporate finance performance. The
impact
of
high
performance
work
practices
on
corporate
financial
performances influence the employee turnover and its productivity. Bloch

(2004) investigated the effect of job satisfaction on employee motivation and
turnover intensions. The data collected showed the effect of variables
(physical environment, task design, reward and reinforcement, supervisory
support and coaching, social norms and organizational culture) on job
66
satisfaction, employee motivation and turnover intentions. He defined

summarised job satisfaction results increased motivation and reduce turnover
intentions.
It is also assumed that the intrinsic and extrinsic compensation instrument has
a direct positive relation with motivation, improved employee morale,
employee engagement and productivity.
In the Indian corporate context,
employee-friendly policies have a positive impact on job motivation. Also,

variables like procedural justice, organizational policies, autonomy, feedback,
goal clarity, supervisory relationship, organizational citizenship behavior
impact on organization commitment and reduce turnover. P Doody (2007)
investigated the impact of high involvement work system on employee
turnover and organization performance. The data established the effect of
high involvement in work system to improve productivity.
In the corporate sector which predominantly has employees with high
aspirations, training is a major element to create more motivated employees
and establish productive workforce with the help of employee investment,
reciprocity, identification and alternative employment options. HR to a great
extent, controls organization factors that merit promotion, pay and loyalty
through HRM policies. The other factors which affect employee motivation are
health benefit, base pay and life/ work balance, autonomy, growth, esteem,
belongingness, career opportunities and climate.
Cernea (1975) investigated the role of individual motivation and labor turnover
under socialism in industrial sector. He found out the effect of nine Variables
(higher wages, residence, better regime, intrusting work, less physical effort,
better working conditions, furthering education, better social service, and
67
strained relation with work group) employee motivation on turnover. He found

the most significant factors and attributes of motivation on employee turnover
are higher wages, residence, better regime, intrusting work, less physical
effort, better working conditions, furthering education, better social service,
and strained relation with work group.
2.7 Employee Retention in Corporate sector

Before the economic liberalisation policy of the Congress Government (1991)
in India, the scenario in Organizations were completely different from that
which exists now in terms of stability of workforce as opportunities were very
few at that time comparatively. In the early 50s and 60s, more Government
Organizations/semi-government Organizations and very few private players
existed. People who entered the job market remained with one employer for a
very long time, sometimes for the duration of their working life. If they
changed jobs it was usually a major career and life decision and someone
who made many and frequent job changes was looked at as an incompetent
person not able to survive anywhere, struggling to make both ends meet. In
the 70s and later, external mobility increased dramatically posing a great
threat to the Organizations. The HR leadership of the Organizations found
themselves with a new phenomenon to consider, the employee turnover.
According to Get Les McKeon, employee retention is defined as "A systematic
effort by employers to create and foster an environment that encourages
current employees to remain employed by having policies and practices in
place that address their diverse needs. The costs associated with turnover
may include lost customers, business and damaged morale. In addition, there
68
are the hard costs of time spent in screening, verifying credentials,

references, interviewing, hiring and training the new employee just to get back
to where you started.
Also of concern are the costs of employee turnover (including hiring costs &
productivity loss). Replacement costs usually are two and a half times the
salary of the individual. Therefore, employee retention is effort by a business
to maintain a working environment which supports current staff in remaining
with the company.
Boxall, Macky and Rasmussen (2003) have conducted a study of retention
variables for New Zealand employees in which they state that the variables
are multidimensional. These include interesting work, which was rated as the
strongest factor in attracting and retaining employees in both public and
private sector organisations. The research outcome showed that employees
expect management to make personnel decisions based on merit and also
demonstrated that extrinsic rewards (such as pay, promotion & job security)
play a role in both employee retention and turnover management. The
research further suggested that management lent support to the idea of good
relationships with co-employees and supervisors.
Lockwood and Anari (1997) concluded the following factors as crucial
retention strategies for IT professionals in the USA and U.K. In order of their
importance, the study revealed money (base salary plus bonus and stock
options); the chance to learn new skills (i.e. those that the market values); the
reputation of the organization in technology; and working conditions (e.g.
physical, colleagues & boss, casual dress) as some of the important factors.
69
Among retention strategies that were particularly successful in maintaining a

low turnover rate, one of the solutions suggested was an increase in salary.
According to Samuel and Chipunza (2009), the main purpose of retention is to
prevent the loss of competent employees from leaving the organisation as this
could have adverse effect on productivity and profitability. However, retention
practices have become a daunting and highly challenging task for managers
and Human Resources (HR) practitioners in a hostile economic environment.
One of the traditional ways of managing employee retention and turnover is
through organisational reward system.
William and Werther (1996) explain reward as what employees receive in
exchange for their contributions to the organisation. This reward could come
in form of salary, promotion, bonuses and other incentives. When the reward
system is effectively managed, it helps in achieving organizations corporate
objectives, and maintains and retains a productive workforce. A number of
factors have been articulated in order to explain the reason employees leave
one organisation for another, or in some cases, leave the country.
Empirical studies by Kinnear and Sutherland, (2001) and by Meudell and
Rodham, (1998) and also studies by Maertz and Griffeth( 2004) have,
revealed that extrinsic factors such as competitive salary, good interpersonal
relationships, friendly working environment, and job security were cited by
employees as key motivational variables that influenced their retention in the
organisations. The implication of this therefore is that management should not
rely only on intrinsic variables to influence employee retention; rather, a
combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic variables should be considered as
an effective retention strategy.
70
Stauss etal (2001) have suggested a more detailed and recent definition for
the concept of retention which is customer liking, identification, commitment,
trust, readiness to recommend, and repurchase intentions, with the first four
being emotional-cognitive retention constructs, and the last two being
behavioral intentions.
A study done by Fitzenz (1990) has indicated that retention is driven by
following key factors, which ought to be managed congruently: organizational
culture strategy, pay and benefits philosophy, and career development
systems.
According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), organizations often look beyond the
concept of satisfaction to developing trust and ensure long term relationships
with their employees. Further, this suggestion is based on the principle that
once trust is built into a relationship, the probability of either party ending the
relationship decreases because of high termination costs.
Numerous studies by Anderson and Sullivan (1993);Rucci et al (1998), Bansal
explain the importance of high employees involvement and how it could
enhance their retention.
According to Gopinath and Becker (2000), effective communications improve
employee identification with their agency and build openness and trust
culture. Increasingly, organizations provide information on values, mission,
strategies, competitive performance, and changes that may affect employees
enthusiasm. Many companies are working to provide information that
communication, through the most credible sources (e.g., CEO and top
management strategies) on a timely and consistent basis. In the absence of
71
this, it is possible that employees will no longer have the sense of

organization loyalty towards the organization. Increasing number of
organizational mergers and acquisitions have left employees feeling
displeased from the companies that they work and they are haunted by
concerns of overall job security. As a result, employees are now making
strategic career moves to guarantee employment that satisfy their need for
security. On the other hand, employers have a need to keep their stuff from
leaving or going to work for other companies. This is true because of the great
expenses associated with hiring and retraining new employees.
Employee Retention has gained importance in recent years, particularly as
part of talent management programs, and its relevance can be seen so much
that the HR practitioner who integrates it into a talent program may grow
bewildered by the huge volume of research about it. Employee retention is
more than just keeping employees on the job. It is also about sustaining
employees, primarily by enhancing their job satisfaction.
Workplaces everywhere are struggling with employee engagement. Engaged
workers are more productive, perform better, motivate others and, perhaps
most importantly stay. So it is also no surprise that in a labor market such as
India where attrition rates of 20-30% are normal and 50% in industries such
as ITES not unheard of, serious questions about engagement are being
asked. Moreover voluntary turnover has now increased drastically, as the
Indian market is opened to foreign players as well. Besides this, the
government is also encouraging entrepreneurship, so there are many
domestic players also entering the Indian market. This situation has resulted
in stiff competition for competent workforce. Poaching and job-hopping has
72
become the order of the day. As the Organization began to feel the impact of
the rise of voluntary employee turnover, employee retention strategies
emerged. Earlier studies on retention mostly focussed on analysing the
causes for employees leaving the Organization, aiming at controlling attrition,
and it was found that the causes varied from one Organization to the other.
Later studies on employee retention focused on factors that influenced the
employees to stay back in the Organization, to concentrate on those factors
that hold back the employees. Last decade witnessed studies on
attitude/behavioural
changes of
employees
towards
work
and
work
relationships, as it was believed to predict turnover.

The issue boils down to couple of key drivers of attrition in India:
1. The generational factor is formidable. Indian millennials are no different
from those elsewhere they just have more opportunities in their buoyant
market at present. Young Indians are looking to fast-track their learning
experiences and their seniority, and job-hopping appears to be a good way to
achieve both. A 2012 survey by Catalyst shows that 78% young Indians
aspire to senior executive and/or CEO roles, and theyre very impatient about
getting there.
2. The management carries major blame for high turnover. Many employees
are passively unimpressed by or actively disenchanted with their managers. In
a market where higher pay remains the number one motivator for job change,
one survey of Indian organizations attributes 48% of turnover to poor
relationships between employees and their supervisors. A study by Right
Management of over 4,000 employees in 28 Indian companies similarly found
that 53% were dissatisfied with their immediate manager.
73
Models on Employee Retention

There are two important models on employee retention, one of them is a)
Zinger Model and the other is 2) ERCs Retention Model. A brief explanation
of these models is follows:
Zinger Model: Employee retention is the art and science of engaging people
in authentic and recognized connections to strategy, roles, performance,
organization,
community, relationship, customers, development, energy, and well-being as
companies leverage, sustain, and transform their work connections into
results.
According to the Zinger Model, employee retention is directed towards
achieving results of the organization that the department, team, or individual
wants to achieve. To achieve results, companies need to craft a strategy to
get there .A central key of employee retention is connection. In some cases
connection is synonymous with engagement. Engagement is not a one-time
survey measure or a steady state. To engage is to fully experience and
contribute to the dynamic elements of work.
Employee retention must be authentic and retention of competent employee
requires powerful recognitions. A role is a set of behaviors, rights and
obligations at work companies must guard against too many roles or role
overload while also fully being in the roles that contribute to results,
relationships, and engagement. This model emphasizes that employee
retention
can
contribute
to
effective
performance
management
and
74
performance demonstrates companys engagement while engagement and

retention can help companies excel at performance.
Good employee retention should foster star performers. The employee should
also align with the organization so as to build up the esteem of the
organization and there should not be a disconnect between employee and
organization. Companies want employees to serve their customers and this is
a very strong relationships between employee engagement and employee
retention. Effective Employee retention helps to serve customers a lot. The
model comments that employees should experience both personal and
professional development through work ranging from courses to plum projects
and learning to develop their own strengths, value, visibility, and engagement.
Powerful retention involves complete synchronization of all four quadrants of
physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and organizational energy. Work should
contribute to employee well-being. Employees need to both engage in and
experience healthy well-being. An organizations results are dependent upon
the health and productivity of individual employees.
ERC's Retention Model
Employee
Retention
Connection's
model
concentrates
on
applied
organizational experience indicating three primary drivers of employee

retention.
1. Work can be made stimulating by giving variety of assignments,
autonomy to make decisions, resources and support provided to do
good work, opportunity to learn, feedback on result and understanding
the significance of one's personal contributions.
75
2. Motivational Leadership also helps retain employees therefore leaders

should champion change and must be open to new ideas. They should
inspire a shared vision of organization direction, develop the
capabilities of others and become a model for behaviors that reflects
organization values.
3. Companies should recognize and reward a job that is done well and
should reinforce desired behaviours and create an emphasis and focus
on recognition. They should celebrate successes in order to build selfesteem and enhance camaraderie and team work.
The Three Rs of Employee Retention
Employee retention consists of 3 Rs which helps in retaining effective
employees. To keep effective employees and keep satisfaction high, each of
the three Rs of employee retention is important.
1. Respect is esteem, special regard, or particular consideration given to
people. As the pyramid shows, respect is the foundation of keeping
your employees. Recognition and rewards will have little effect if you
dont respect employees.
2. Recognition is defined as special notice or attention and the act of
perceiving clearly. Many problems with retention and morale occur
because management is not paying attention to peoples needs and
reactions.
3. Rewards are the extra perks that a company offers beyond the basics
of respect and recognition that makes it worth peoples while to work
hard, to care, to go beyond the call of duty. While rewards represent
76
the smallest portion of the retention equation, they are still an important
one.
2.8 Gap in Research

Past research, historical data, books in the library, catalogues, databases,
Internet, were widely accessed to arrive at the gaps in literature. The intensive
review of literature reveals that there is no dearth of researches focussed on
the subject of employee commitment and leadership style. Though less in
number but there are also studies on the impact of leadership style on
employee motivation and employee loyalty as well. However it is very rare to
come across studies which have been conducted on the impact of leadership
style on commitment and motivation and in the FMCG and Oil and Petroleum
sectors. Therefore the intention of the researcher is to find out how far the
leadership styles become parameters impacting employee motivation and
commitment in selected sectors like these. The results of the study would
equip the organisational leadership to determine which styles to adopt so that
the employees are more committed and motivated and hence have a much
better engagement and connect with the organisation. Adoption of the
appropriate style will help induce trust and loyalty for the organisation.
77
CHAPTER 3
CORPORATE SECTOR IN INDIA
78
CHAPTER 3
CORPORATE SECTOR IN INDIA
The Indian corporate sector has two main components, namely, the
government owned and privately owned companies. The size of both the
components, in terms of both numbers and capital, has grown fast,
particularly since beginning of the 'seventies. Government companies are
mainly in the basic, heavy and capital intensive industries whereas the private
sector is predominantly in industries which cater to the consumer markets
directly. It is due to such a basic difference that while the government sector
accounts for nearly two-thirds of the productive industrial capital, its share in
the net value added is less than one-third. The opposite is true of the private
sector. The differing nature of the activities undertaken by the two sectors is
also reflected in the pattern of industrial activities of the two sectors.
Being government owned enterprises, the choice of investment, location,
pricing, employment and all other important policies are centrally decided.
These have to be in conformity with the macro and socio-economic objectives
- which are multiple and sometimes even self-contradictory. The logic of
industry specialisation to harness economies of scale and adoption of new
technologies to cut down costs of production do not appear to be a strong
point with most of the Big Business Houses in India. The diversity is
impressive and specialisation, the least significant. To illustrate: the Birlas are
in jute, textiles, sanitaryware, cement, steel, plastics, dairy, newspaper
industry, shipping, automobiles, electricals, tea, sugar, chemicals and
fertilizers. Similarly, one has only to glance through the list of new products in
79
which even an industrial House like that of the Tatas, which by popular
perception is associated with steel, trucks, power generation and other high
technology areas is now having a hold in such low technology areas like
hotels, paints, cosmetics, toiletries and garments besides trading in a variety
of consumer goods. Examples can be multiplied to bring home the point that
growth in concentration of the productive resources in the Indian private
corporate sector has not been accompanied by industry specialisation; which
could reap economies of scale or could help achieve technological
breakthroughs by undertaking worthwhile R & D activities. Even in the use of
non-sophisticated technologies, the corporate sector in India has largely
depended on imported technologies. There is a fairly good number of private
sector companies which have shown unique performance in growth as well as
profitability. A study was conducted to present the mechanism of fast
emergence of massive conglomerates, generally known as Business Houses
in India. The four clearly identifiable factors responsible for the rapid
expansion in the numbers and the size of Big Business House phenomenon
are:
(a) The system of inter-corporate investments;
(b) The wide participation of public sector financial institutions in the risk
capital;
(c) The growing inter-locking and business collaborations of Transnational
Corporations and large private companies; and
(d) The entry of state level corporations in establishing 'joint sector' projects in
which the obtaining of industrial licences, foreign collaborations, financial and
80
other infrastructural support is organised by the State Governments but the

management is left to the private co-promoter/private company which in larger
projects happens to be an associate company of one or the other Big
Business Houses.
The above four factors have been the major contributors. But, one should in
no way discount the role of a variety of economic policies in their true content
and implementation than the original intentions and the changed nature of
public concerns -- irrespective of the reasons which might have been
responsible for the new idiom and the socio-economic environment.
There are also success stories of the private entrepreneurs or Companies
under Large House managements having a sound and profitable track record
of financial performance. It is not uncommon to come across nation-wide
publicity campaigns showing the annual rate of return on investments as high
as 70 per cent or more by some of the Big Business controlled companies.
There are certainly a few 'blue chips' in the Indian share market. The fast
expanding companies -- an interesting aspect of the Indian private sector's
high growth -- have among them those enterprises who have been at the 'zero
level' of tax obligations.
A few policy alternatives with regard to the Indian private corporate sector
may be put forth for discussion. The basic assumptions underlying this are:
a) The large private corporate sector has acquired a significant place in the
Indian economy;
b) Because of its size and place in the Indian economic system any distortions
in the sector would have high economic costs;
81
c) If one goes by the extent of direct and indirect share in the equity in
individual companies as also in the privately managed and controlled House
companies, public sector financial institutions taken together are the single
largest shareholders. In fact the macro picture would reveal that the share of
the public sector financial institutions is a multiple of the net risk borne by
those who happen to enjoy management control;
d) The old and traditional systems of control and managements need to
reform their structures and bring in more rational system of social
accountability than what has so far been true;
e) There is a need for the investment pattern to be governed by national plan
priorities than by considerations of the effective market demand;
f) There is a need to review the very logic, merits and demerits of the
traditional family based business House concept;
g) That there is a need to have more critical investigations and empirical
verification in the process of public policy evolution.
3.1 Structure of Corporates The Organisational Framework

Organizational structure refers to the way that an organization arranges
people and jobs so that its work can be performed and its goals can be met.
When a work group is very small, and face-to-face communication is frequent,
formal structure may be unnecessary, but in a larger organization decisions
have to be made about the delegation of various tasks. Thus, procedures are
established that assign responsibilities for various functions. It is these
decisions that determine the organizational structure. In an organization of
any size or complexity, employees' responsibilities typically are defined by
82
what they do, who they report to, and for managers, who reports to them.
Over time these definitions are assigned to positions in the organization rather
than to specific individuals. The relationships among these positions are
illustrated graphically in an organizational chart. The best organizational
structure for any organization depends on many factors including the work it
does; its size in terms of employees, revenue, and the geographic dispersion
of its facilities; and the range of its businesses (the degree to which it is
diversified across markets). In many ways, business structures mirror Indian
society. Both are extremely hierarchical in nature, where people have an
allotted
position
which
they
do
not
attempt
to
overturn.
Many MNC's try to introduce a flatter, more egalitarian structure to their Indian
subsidiary in order to align it with other offices in the group. This may prove
difficult in a country where hierarchy is unquestioningly accepted.
Development of the Traditional Organisational Structure
Understanding the historical context from which some of today's dominant
organizational structures have developed helps to explain why some
structures are the way they are. It is food for thought as to why the still
operational steel mills such as U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel structured
using vertical hierarchies, why are newer steel mini-mills such as Chaparral
Steel structured more horizontally, capitalizing on the innovativeness of their
employees. Part of the reason is that organizational structure has a certain
inertiathe idea borrowed from physics and chemistry that something in
motion tends to continue on that same path. Changing an organization's
structure is a daunting managerial task, and the immensity of such a project is
83
at least partly responsible for why organizational structures change

infrequently.
At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States business sector
was thriving. Industry was shifting from job-shop manufacturing to mass
production, and thinkers like Frederick Taylor in the United States and Henri
Fayol in France studied the new systems and developed principles to
determine how to structure organizations for the greatest efficiency and
productivity, which in their view was very much like a machine. Even before
this, German sociologist and engineer Max Weber had concluded that when
societies embrace capitalism, bureaucracy is the inevitable result. Yet,
because his writings were not translated into English until 1949, Weber's work
had little influence on American management practice until the middle of the
twentieth century.
Management thought during this period did match Weber's ideas of
bureaucracy, where power is ascribed to positions rather than to the
individuals holding those positions. It also was influenced by Taylor's scientific
management, or the one best way to accomplish a task using scientificallydetermined studies of time and motion. Fayol's ideas of invoking unity
significantly influenced, within the chain-of-command, authority, discipline,
task specialization, and other aspects of organizational power and job
separation. This created the context for vertically-structured organizations
characterized by distinct job classifications and top-down authority structures,
or what became known as the traditional or classical organizational structure.
Job specialization, a hierarchical reporting structure through a tightly-knit
chain-of-command, and the subordination of individual interests to the
84
superordinate goals of the organization combined to result in organizations

arranged by functional departments with order and discipline maintained by
rules, regulations, and standard operating procedures. This classical view, or
bureaucratic structure, of organizations was the dominant pattern, as small
organizations grew increasingly larger during the economic boom that
occurred from the 1900s until the Great Depression of the 1930s. Henry
Ford's plants were typical of this growth, as the emerging Ford Motor
Company grew into the largest U.S. automaker by the 1920s.
The Great Depression temporarily stifled U.S. economic growth, but
organizations that survived emerged with their vertically-oriented, bureaucratic
structures intact as public attention shifted to World War II. Post-war
rebuilding reignited economic growth, powering organizations that survived
the Great Depression toward increasing size in terms of sales revenue,
employees, and geographic dispersion. Along with increasing growth,
however, came increasing complexity. Problems in U.S. business structures
became apparent and new ideas began to appear. Studies of employee
motivation raised questions about the traditional model. The one best way to
do a job gradually disappeared as the dominant logic. It was replaced by
concerns that traditional organizational structures might prevent, rather than
help, promote creativity and innovationboth of which were necessary as the
century wore on and pressures to compete globally mounted.
Different Organisational Structures
There are multiple structural variations that organizations can take on, but
there are a few basic principles that apply and a small number of common
patterns. The structure of every organization is unique in some respect, but all
85
organizational structures are consciously designed to enable the organization

to accomplish its work. Typically, the structure of an organization evolves as
the organization grows and changes over time.
Researchers generally identify four basic decisions that managers have to
make as they develop an organizational structure, although they may not be
explicitly aware of these decisions.
1. Division of labor. The organization's work must be divided into specific
jobs.
2. Departmentalization. Unless the organization is very small, the jobs
must be grouped in some way.
3. Span of control. The number of people and jobs that are to be grouped
together must be decided, which is related to the number of people that
are to be managed by one person.
4. Authority. The way decision-making authority is to be distributed must
be determined.
In making each of these design decisions, a range of choices are possible. At
one end of the spectrum, jobs are highly specialized with employees
performing a narrow range of activities; while at the other end of the spectrum
employees perform a variety of tasks. In traditional bureaucratic structures,
there is a tendency to increase task specialization as the organization grows
larger. In grouping jobs into departments, the manager must decide the basis
on which to group them. The most common basis, at least until the last few
decades, was by function. For example, all accounting jobs in the organization
86
can be grouped into an accounting department, all engineers can be grouped

into an engineering department, and so on.
The size of the groupings also can range from small to large depending on the
number of people the managers supervise. The degree to which authority is
distributed throughout the organization can vary as well, but traditionally
structured organizations typically vest final decision-making authority by those
highest in the vertically structured hierarchy. Even as pressures to include
employees in decision-making increased during the 1950s and 1960s, top
management usually made final decisions. The traditional model of
organizational structure is thus characterized by high job specialization,
functional departments, narrow spans of control, and centralized authority.
Such a structure has been referred to as traditional, classical, bureaucratic,
formal, mechanistic, or command and control. A structure formed by choices
at the opposite end of the spectrum for each design decision is called
unstructured, informal or organic.
Functional Break-ups of Organisations
Many organizations group jobs in various ways in different parts of the
organization, but the basis that is used at the highest level plays a
fundamental role in shaping the organization. There are four commonly used
bases: functional, geographic, product, and customer/market.
Functional Departmentalization : Every organization of a given type must
perform certain jobs in order to do its work. For example, key functions of a
manufacturing
company
include
production,
purchasing,
marketing,
accounting, and personnel. The functions of a hospital include surgery,
87
psychiatry, nursing, housekeeping, and billing. Using such functions as the

basis for structuring the organization may, in some instances, have the
advantage of efficiency. Grouping jobs that require the same knowledge,
skills, and resources allows them to be done efficiently and promotes the
development of greater expertise. A disadvantage of functional groupings is
that people with the same skills and knowledge may develop a narrow
departmental focus and have difficulty appreciating any other view of what is
important to the organization; in this case, organizational goals may be
sacrificed in favor of departmental goals. In addition, coordination of work
across functional boundaries can become a difficult management challenge,
especially as the organization grows in size and spreads to multiple
geographical locations.
Geographic Departmentalization : Organizations that are spread over a
wide area may find advantages in organizing along geographic lines so that
all the activities performed in a region are managed together. In a large
organization, simple physical separation makes centralized coordination more
difficult. Also, important characteristics of a region may make it advantageous
to promote a local focus. For example, marketing a product in Western
Europe may have different requirements than marketing the same product in
Southeast Asia. Companies that market products globally sometimes adopt a
geographic structure. In addition, experience gained in a regional division is
often excellent training for management at higher levels.
Product Departmentalization : Large, diversified companies are often
organized according to product. All the activities necessary to produce and
market a product or group of similar products are grouped together. In such
88
an arrangement, the top manager of the product group typically has

considerable autonomy over the operation. The advantage of this type of
structure is that the personnel in the group can focus on the particular needs
of their product line and become experts in its development, production, and
distribution. A disadvantage, at least in terms of larger organizations, is the
duplication of resources. Each product group requires most of the functional
areas such as finance, marketing, production, and other functions. The top
leadership of the organization must decide how much redundancy it can
afford.
Customer / Market Departmentalization : An organization may find it
advantageous to organize according to the types of customers it serves. For
example, a distribution company that sells to consumers, government clients,
large businesses, and small businesses may decide to base its primary
divisions on these different markets. Its personnel can then become proficient
in meeting the needs of these different customers. In the same way, an
organization that provides services such as accounting or consulting may
group its personnel according to these types of customers. Figure 1 depicts
an organization grouped by customers and markets.
Traditional Organisation Structure
The traditional approach is the vertically-arranged organizational structure that
came to dominate in the first half of the twentieth century. This traditional
model is easily represented in a graphical form by an organizational chart. It is
a hierarchical or pyramidal structure with a president or other executive at the
top, a small number of vice presidents or senior managers under the
president, and several layers of management below this, with the majority of
89
employees at the bottom of the pyramid. The number of management layers

depends largely on the size of the organization. The jobs in the traditional
organizational structure usually are grouped by function into departments
such as accounting, sales, human resources, and so on.
Matrix Organisational Structure
Some organizations find that none of the aforementioned structures meet their
needs. One approach that attempts to overcome the inadequacies is the
matrix structure, which is the combination of two or more different structures.
Functional departmentalization commonly is combined with product groups on
a project basis. For example, a product group wants to develop a new
addition to its line; for this project, it obtains personnel from functional
departments such as research, engineering, production, and marketing.
These personnel then work under the manager of the product group for the
duration of the project, which can vary greatly. These personnel are
responsible to two managers.
One advantage of a matrix structure is that it facilitates the use of highly
specialized staff and equipment. Rather than duplicating functions as would
be done in a simple product department structure, resources are shared as
needed. In some cases, highly specialized staff may divide their time among
more than one project. In addition, maintaining functional departments
promotes functional expertise, while at the same time working in project
groups with experts from other functions fosters cross-fertilization of ideas.
The disadvantages of a matrix organization arise from the dual reporting
structure. The organization's top management must take particular care to
90
establish proper procedures for the development of projects and to keep

communication channels clear so that potential conflicts do not arise and
hinder organizational functioning. In theory at least, top management is
responsible for arbitrating such conflicts, but in practice power struggles
between the functional and product manager can prevent successful
implementation
of
matrix
structural
arrangements.
Besides
the
product/function matrix, other bases can be related in a matrix. Large

multinational corporations that use a matrix structure most commonly combine
product groups with geographic units. Product managers have global
responsibility for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of their own
product or service line, while managers of geographic regions have
responsibility for the success of the business in their regions.
Strategic Business Units
As corporations become very large they often restructure as a means of
revitalizing the organization. Growth of a business often is accompanied by a
growth in bureaucracy, as positions are created to facilitate developing needs
or opportunities. Continued changes in the organization or in the external
business environment may make this bureaucracy a hindrance rather than a
help, not simply because of the size or complexity of the organization but due
to a sluggish bureaucratic way of thinking. One approach to encourage new
ways of thinking and acting is to reorganize parts of the company into largely
autonomous groups, called strategic business units (SBUs). Such units
generally are set up like separate companies, with full profit and loss
responsibility invested in the top management of the unitoften the president
of the unit and/or a senior vice president of the larger corporation. This
91
manager is responsible to the top management of the corporation. This

arrangement
can
be
seen
as
taking
any
of
the
aforementioned
departmentalization schemes one step further. The SBUs might be based on

product lines, geographic markets, or other differentiating factors. Figure 4
depicts SBUs organized by geographic area.
Emerging Trends in Organisational Structure
Except for the matrix organization, all the structures described above focus on
the vertical organization; that is, who reports to whom, who has responsibility
and authority for what parts of the organization, and so on. Such vertical
integration is sometimes necessary, but may be a hindrance in rapidly
changing environments. A detailed organizational chart of a large corporation
structured on the traditional model would show many layers of managers;
decision-making flows vertically up and down the layers, but mostly
downward. In general terms, this is an issue of interdependence.
In any organization, the different people and functions do not operate
completely independently. To a greater or lesser degree, all parts of the
organization need each other. Important developments in organizational
design in the last few decades of the twentieth century and the early part of
the twenty-first century have been attempts to understand the nature of
interdependence and improve the functioning of organizations in respect to
this factor. One approach is to flatten the organization, to develop the
horizontal connections and de-emphasize vertical reporting relationships. At
times, this involves simply eliminating layers of middle management. For
example, some Japanese companieseven very large manufacturing firms
have only four levels of management: top management, plant management,
92
department management, and section management. Some U.S. companies

also have drastically reduced the number of managers as part of a downsizing
strategy; not just to reduce salary expense, but also to streamline the
organization in order to improve communication and decision-making.
In a virtual sense, technology is another means of flattening the organization.
The use of computer networks and software designed to facilitate group work
within an organization can speed communications and decision-making. Even
more effective is the use of intranets to make company information readily
accessible throughout the organization. The rapid rise of such technology has
made virtual organizations and boundary-less organizations possible, where
managers, technicians, suppliers, distributors, and customers connect digitally
rather than physically.
A different perspective on the issue of interdependence can be seen by
comparing the organic model of organization with the mechanistic model. The
traditional, mechanistic structure is characterized as highly complex because
of its emphasis on job specialization, highly formalized emphasis on definite
procedures and protocols, and centralized authority and accountability. Yet,
despite the advantages of coordination that these structures present, they
may hinder tasks that are interdependent. In contrast, the organic model of
organization is relatively simple because it de-emphasizes job specialization,
is relatively informal, and decentralizes authority. Decision-making and goalsetting processes are shared at all levels, and communication ideally flows
more freely throughout the organization.
93
Restructuring
Industry consolidationcreating huge global corporations through joint
ventures, mergers, alliances, and other kinds of inter-organizational
cooperative effortshas become increasingly important in the twenty-first
century. Among organizations of all sizes, concepts such as agile
manufacturing,
just-in-time
inventory
management,
and
ambidextrous
organizations are impacting managers' thinking about their organizational

structure. Indeed, few leaders were likely to blindly implement the traditional
hierarchical structure common in the first half of the twentieth century. The
early twenty-first century has been dominated by the thinking that changing
organizational structures, while still a monumental managerial challenge, can
be a necessary condition for competitive success. As the authors of Designing
Organizations to Create Value (2003) write, a poor design can lead to lost
profits and even result in the failure of the institution.
Indeed, corporate restructuring has become a popular response to financial
difficulties in the twenty-first century. However, there are dangers to following
the path of reorganization. Removing layers of bureaucracy to cut costs is
tempting, but it can often be the case that removed layers of management
creep back into the organization. It can also be difficult to reshape an
organization with a strong organizational culture, as many well-established
firms have. Further, reorganization may not be an appropriate response to
trouble. According to a 2008 article in the Harvard Business Review, in
efforts to improve performance, most organizations go right to structural
measures because moving lines around the org chart seems the most
obvious solution and the changes are visible and concrete. However, the
94
article notes, such changes are generally only short-term and Several years
later, companies usually end up in the same place they started.
Whatever the potential dangers, structural reorganization is likely to remain a
popular corporate strategy in the fast-paced global environment of the twentyfirst century. Properly handled, restructuringparticularly away from the
traditional vertical modelcan increase competitiveness and reorient the
organizational culture and behaviors to enhance productivity and profits. Even
with the attendant dangers, restructuring is a tempting path. As the authors of
Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture (2006) note, The failure
rate of most planned organizational change initiatives is dramatic, but
organizations that are not in the business of change and transition are
generally viewed as recalcitrant.
Structure of Organisations in the Study
A very high percentage (82%) of respondents are in operations and middle
management. There is a stable organizational design which formally creates
system of task and authority to control activities for achievement of
organizational goals. Middle management layers and frontline management
layers are prevalent in most of the organizational design. Jones (2001) says
that organizational design has important implication for an organizations
ability to deal with contingencies, achieve a competitive advantage, effectively
manage diversity, and increase its efficiency and ability to innovate new
goods and services. There are career progression policies, command and
control
mechanism
and
standard
operating
procedures
within
the
organizations. The Organizations are agile, flexible to change structures to

respond to changing needs of business. Though in varying degrees but there
95
are routes for personal and professional development. Some of the

organisations over a period of time have tried to introduce a flatter, more
egalitarian structure in order to align it with other offices in the group.
By and large, all the organisations had the following guidelines :
i.
Defined rules, procedures, recruitment and promotional policies etc
ii.
Decentralization in working and grievance redressal system
iii.
Transparency and availability of correct/unambiguous information
iv.
Adequate Budget allocation, utilization and financial practices
3.2 Corporate sector - Oil and Petroleum segment

India is the fifth largest energy consumer and amongst the largest oil importer
country in the world. Like many other industries, Indian petroleum industry has
been strictly regulated since independence in 1947. Until 2002, petro-retailing
was
the
monopolistic
business
of
government
regulated
petroleum
companies. The role of petroleum companies was just to sell and distribute
petroleum products to the end users. The government had set an objective
that the state owned petroleum companies popularly referred to as public
sector OMCs carry out business with social objective. Therefore competition
was not allowed among them by government. Also, the prices of most
petroleum products were fixed under the Administered Pricing Mechanism
(APM) by Government of India. Under the APM, product prices were directly
administered by government based on an opaque and complex "cost of
operating capital plus" formula. Until few years ago, petro retailing in India
was a staid, even boring business (IBEF, 2004). The petro retailing scenario
has suddenly changed when government declared that it would opt out of
96
regulating the OMCs and the petrol market in India. In April 2002, Indian
government deregulated the oil sector and abolished the APM which
controlled the price of petroleum products and allowed private sector
companies to set up their petro retail outlets to market petroleum products at
the market-determined prices (Clarke Kieran, 2010). New regime opened
doors for private sector players. The entry of private sector players in the
Indian market witnessed the forces of marketing and competition in petro
retailing.
Davar R. (2007) observed that the policy shift sparked a rush for opening the
petro retail outlets, as both private and public sector companies wished to
position themselves to sell to the nation's growing and increasing mobile
middle class. Old players i.e. public sector OMCs found themselves amidst
cut throat competition. The newly entered private players started retailing of
petroleum products with more professional and aggressive approach. They
also adopted skilled marketing practices. The public sector OMCs did not
have marketing strength but they had an advantage of vast experience,
understanding and knowledge of the Indian petro retail market and its
operations. Their most important strength was extensive distribution network
covering all important locations in India. The competition with private sector
players forced public sector OMCs to convert their business from 'very low
involvement
commodity'
into
'high
involvement
brands'.
Both private and public sector players are now focusing their efforts to
increase their market share. They are trying to understand the consumer
needs and accordingly adopting different retail marketing practices like
branding, positioning, advertising, sales promotions, delivery of services, etc.
97
The petrol retail outlets are quickly getting converted into multi-facility centers
with change in signage's, logos and canopies, clean floors, channel music,
lightings, attendants with uniform, convenience stores, ATMs (Automatic
Teller Machines), internet browsing facilities, video parlors, entertainment,
supermarkets, auto/truck repair services and promotion schemes. The public
sector OMCs are working towards delivering a new experience to the Indian
consumers. New and attractive petro retail outlet designs, use of credit cards,
lady attendants and carwashes have become an essential part of the
petroleum retailing makeup, especially in big cities and urban areas in India.
Compared to the challenging global economic environment that was
witnessed in 2012-13, the year 2013-14 brought in a sense of optimism as it
unfolded. The world economy prepared for a more positive financial outlook in
the coming years with the Euro Zone seeming to come out of recession and
registering positive growth in the second quarter of 2013 and US too showing
signs of strengthening of the economy. However, overall, the year 2013-14
was as challenging as 2012-13, with the global economy growing by 3 per
cent in 2013, compared to 3.2 per cent in 2012 and 4 per cent in 2011.
Talent shortage is now a critical challenge for the oil and gas industry at both
India and global level. The challenges are largely due to variations in
employment within the industry. The significant variation in employment
figures for the industry is a result of the intrinsic boom and bust cycles that
have afflicted the industry. Globally, companies have struggled to recruit,
retain and develop sufficient manpower to sustain operations. Manpower
deficits are leading to project delays and cost overruns, and this problem is
more serious in the upstream sector.
98
As per the E&Y report HR Challenges in the Indian Oil and Gas sector, it is
estimated that in the next five years, around 7% of the current workforce will
leave the oil and gas sector in India. A study of total attrition by level reveals
that the upstream oil and gas sector is faced with significant attrition at the
middle-management level, while other sub-sectors are facing this challenge at
junior-management levels. Middle-management attrition is due to various
international opportunities available for employees with more than ten years of
experience.
The lack of career opportunities and extreme working conditions are other
primary reasons for employee attrition. In the downstream (refining and
petrochemical) and marketing sectors, around 75% 6 of attrition is expected at
the junior-management level, indicating the absence of a robust talentretention mechanism in organizations.Under such circumstances, the issues
of employee engagement, motivation and talent management and retention
are important as never before.
3.3 Corporate sector - Fast Moving Consumer Goods

Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) are popularly named as consumer
packaged goods. Items in this category include all consumables (other than
groceries/pulses) people buy at regular intervals. The most common in the list
are toilet soaps, detergents, shampoos, toothpaste, shaving products, food
and beverage, personal care, pharmaceuticals, plastic goods, paper and
stationery, household accessories and extends to certain electronic goods.
These items are meant for daily of frequent consumption and have a high
return.
99
The Indian FMCG sector is the fourth largest in the Indian economy and has a
market size of $13.1 billion. This industry primarily includes the production,
distribution and marketing of consumer packaged goods, that is those
categories of products which are consumed at regular intervals. The sector is
growing at rapid pace with well-established distribution networks and intense
competition between the organized and unorganized segments. It has a
strong and competitive MNC presence across the entire value chain. The
FMCGs promising market includes middle class and the rural segments of
the Indian population, and gives brand makers the opportunity to convert them
to branded products.
A well-established distribution network spread across six million retail outlets,
low penetration levels, low operating costs and intense competition between
the organized and unorganized segments are key characteristics of this
sector. At present, urban India accounts for 66% of total FMCG consumption,
with rural India accounting for the remaining 34%. However, rural India
accounts for more than 40% consumption in major FMCG categories such as
personal care, fabric care, and hot beverages. In urban areas, home and
personal care category, including skin care, household care and feminine
hygiene, will keep growing at relatively attractive rates. Within the foods
segment, it is estimated that processed foods, bakery, and dairy are long-term
growth categories in both rural and urban areas. The growing incline of rural
and semi-urban folks for FMCG products will be mainly responsible for the
growth in this sector, as manufacturers will have to deepen their concentration
for higher sales volumes. A rapid urbanization, increase in demands,
presence of large number of young population, a large number of
100
opportunities is available in the FMCG sector. The bottomline is that Indian

market is changing rapidly and is showing unprecedented consumer business
opportunity.
India, Asias third largest economy, saw a downtrend in consumer spending in
2012 due to financial crisis. During 2012, the overall slowdown in the
economy has begun to affect the FMCG sector with companies posting
deceleration in volume growth in the recent quarterly results. Discretionary
spending has been hit severely due to the ongoing slowdown. Over a period
of time, growth came in from rural dwellers that are expected to see a rise in
disposable incomes due to the direct cash transfer scheme, while urban
consumers continued to be affected by the macroeconomic environment.
3.4 Leadership in Oil & Petroleum sector

Management is about achieving results and managers work in different ways
to achieve many diverse and often specific objectives. Theorists have tried to
identify the functions and processes that all managers carry out. The oil and
petroleum industry contains many layers of management within many types of
organisation. The managers in the higher levels have more seniority than
those further down. Everything from geological exploration, drilling, technical
and scientific support, human resources, finance, maintenance, welding,
sales, logistics, safety and emergency planning falls within management
responsibilities. The effective public sector leaders who are a part of the Oil
and Petroleum sector, usually depend upon transformational leadership
behaviour. As per the views of Boyne (2002), public sector organizations are
said to be more bureaucratic which means a clear division of responsibility
101
and hence more role clarity for employees as well as managers.

Venkatapathy (1990) concluded that Public sector organizations are
considered to be more cautious, rigid and less innovative due to its
organizational design, strictness to rules and strategic considerations. As per
the classical administrative theory, organisations are logical, functional, bland,
impersonal, passionless entities that operate according to neutral rules of
efficiency and
economy.
But
organisations
are
social
constructions
characterised by ownership, membership, control and language. Social power

is manifested through the exertion and ability of members and other
stakeholders as they generate and maintain their position and relationships.
These matters are human and illustrate human frailty, skill, ability, learning
capacity, opportunism and willingness to engage, control over passions and
self-centredness or altruism and virtue, ingenuity and disingenuousness.
Hence the management of organisations also require different elements.
As propagated by Henri Fayol, an early theorist, management had the
following elements:
Planning : looking ahead, consulting with others, setting objectives for

staff
Organising : arranging people and things so that objectives can be

achieved
Commanding : giving instructions to workers
Coordinating : bringing activities together into a common approach
Controlling : measuring what is happening and adjusting activities to

achieve goals
102
Fayol analyzed management from level of top management downward and

had a broad vision of a managerial role as mentioned above.
Figure 3.1: Role of a Manager : Henry Fayol
Planning
Organising
Controlling
Henri Fayol :
The role of a
manager
Commanding
Co-ordinating
Source: H. Fayol: General and Industrial Management, IEEE Press, New

York,1984.
The skills and aptitudes of oil and gas employees must be appropriate for
their job roles at every level:
Technical and scientific skills are needed in drilling and exploration to

manage complex equipment and processes.
People management skills are needed in managing staff.
Practical skills are needed in production operations, mechanical

installation, electrical plant maintenance and instrumentation and
control systems.
The Learning wing creates a learning supply chain to stimulate the movement
of people within the industry and ensure they have the right learning, skills,
103
competence, attitudes and behaviours to work safely and effectively.

Leadership differs from management. Leadership encompasses the skills and
qualities needed to inspire others to achieve goals. Leaders can see the heart
of a problem and suggest (sometimes unusual) solutions; they have a positive
self image; they tend to be creative; they are often experts in a field and can
sense change and respond accordingly. Many managers are also leaders, but
people in the oil and gas industry are encouraged to show leadership at every
level. The industry has an inclusive and involving culture so that even the
newest Trainee Instrument Technician may spot a better way of doing
something and will be able to influence positive change.
3.5 Leadership in FMCG sector

Over the past three to four years, the global economy has gone through a
tumultuous change and the looming threat of a double dip and triple dip
recession. The environment that organizations are operating in today is one
characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. The Indian
economy has also not remained insulated from the economic turmoil that the
world is going through many industries have seen slowdown and
organizational decision-making is today marked by cautiousness.
Think global, act local. Its a phrase often heard around environmental issues,
but in reality its exactly the challenge facing the worlds leading FMCG
companies. These companies are focused on:
translating global brands for each local market
managing relationships with multiple local retailers, all of whom are

competing with one another.
104
To do this, it takes a special type of culture, a complex organizational

structure and effective leadership. There are certain reasons which show that
the private sector does not infect or lose its customers while the public sector
does (Wood, 2008). As per the views of Boyne (2002), public sector
organizations are said to be more bureaucratic which means a clear division
of responsibility and hence more role clarity for employees as well as
managers. Venkatapathy (1990) concluded that Public sector organizations
are considered to be more cautious, rigid and less innovative due to its
organizational design, strictness to rules and strategic considerations. These
may explain broadly why a research by Hansen and Villadsen (2010) shows
that leaders in private sector are more inclined towards directive style.
FMCG sector, where one of the organisations in the study has been based,
registered gains of just 33% on the BSE FMCG Index last year. The economic
growth would impact large proportions of the population thus leading to more
money in the hands of the consumer. Changes in demographic composition of
the population and thus the market would also continue to impact the FMCG
industry. In this context, the job of Leadership becomes vital to the growth and
sustenance of the FMCG organisations.
Major Leadership challenges in FMCG sector India are as follows :
1. Managing Knowledge Workers This is typically the kind of people who do
not follow the principles of management for the traditional group. This boils
down to higher educational qualifications, taking up responsibilities at a lesser
age and experience, high bargaining power due to the knowledge and skills in
hand, high demand for the knowledge workers, and techno suaveness. The
105
clear shift is seen in terms of organization career commitment to

individualized career management.
2. Competence of Line Managers and HR : As it is more and more accepted
that lot of success of organizations depend on the human capital, this boils to
recruiting the best, managing the best and retaining the best. Clearly HR and
Line managers have a role in this process. Organisations today focus a lot on
developing competent HR professionals who are sound in HR management
practices with strong business knowledge.
3. Developing Leadership - Though leadership is discussed on the basis of
traits and certain qualities, at an organizational level it is more based on
knowledge. The challenge is to develop individuals who have performance
potential on basis of past record and knowledge based expertise in to
business leaders by imparting them with the necessary "soft skills".
4. Managing Change - Business environment in India is volatile. There is
boom in terms of opportunities brought forward by globalization. The global
nature of FMCG businesses makes it imperative to instil a performance
culture that inspires employees at all levels.
However this is also leading to many interventions in terms of restructuring,
turnaround, mergers, downsizing, etc. Research has clearly shown that the
success of these interventions is heavily dependent on managing the people
issues in the process. Hence Leadership in this sector is focussed on the
people processes which support staff through the frequent and necessary
mergers, acquisitions and restructures in FMCG companies, attracting and
106
retaining talent, motivating and incentivizing your salesforce and developing a

global mindset and culture.
Leadership Style in Public and Private Sector
Leadership style is the behavior pattern used by a leader to resolve the
organizational issues (Lewin, LIippit, & White, 1939). To differentiate the
leadership style of public and private sector, Hudson (2009) used its Business
Attitudes Questionnaire (BAQ) to analyze the personality characteristics of
1,185 senior leaders in Europe. Among these leaders, 485 were selected from
private and 700 from public sector. The results were compared to over 64000
people all over the globe. His key findings were as follows:
Public sector leaders are long term strategy oriented.
Private sector leaders desire quick results.
Public sector leaders believe in control and command.
Private sector leaders trust their subordinates.
Public sector leaders are less optimistic and they go behind thoughtful
approach.
Women leaders in public sector are out spoken.
Young leaders in private sector avail more opportunities for personal

development.
Major findings of this study include that private sector leadership style is not
the benchmark for public sector. It varies from organization to organization
and certain factors will determine particular traits. It was further suggested
that mutual exchange of leaders may extremely be useful for both the sectors,
especially for learning point of view.
107
Many excellent commercial business leaders have made wonderful

contributions not only to their company, but also to the health of the economy
and the wellbeing of each one of us (OBreien, 2004). Voon, Ngui, & Ayob
stated that style of leaders can be the basis of organizational success
because the target achievement can only be made by taking up suitable
leadership style which affects the job satisfaction, commitment and
productivity in the public sector. According to Brooks (2007) leaders do not
often evidence the current skill sets that are required of them and this is more
acute in the public sector. Kim (2005) says public sector employees have
certain positive attributes which contribute to organizational performance;
however, individual-level factors may affect organizational performance.
As we hurl ahead at an increasing pace in the area of technology, we are
unfortunately facing an increased shortage of highly skilled employees and
employee retention is a concern. There are a great number of employment
opportunities for talented professionals. The higher skilled the employees, the
greater the demand for their services. The cost to replace an employee is
becoming more documented and the news is not good for employers. It costs
a great deal to replace an employee. Irrespective of sector, a widely
acknowledged model of engaging employees for higher productivity is as
follows :
108
Figure 3.2 : The Zinger Model
Source : http://www.davidzinger.com/zinger-model/ extracted on 26-09-2014

The 14 employee engagement elements for each element of David Zingers
model are as follows:
Achieve results : Employee Engagement is directed towards achieving

results. The first key of the model begins with the results the organization,
department, team, or individual wants to achieve. The key question for this
part of the model is whether the corporate knows what it wants achieve and
how will it know when the objective is achieved.
Craft strategy : A strategy needs to be crafted to reach the goal. The key
question here is whether it is known how the results will be achieved and if
109
everyone knows the organizations intentions and plans, is the strategy

engaging and whether there is enough employee engagement to fulfill the
strategy.
Connect : A central key of employee engagement is connection. In some

ways connection is synonymous with engagement and it denotes how well are
employees connected to the other elements of engagement ranging from their
organization to genuine happiness.
Authentic : Employee engagement must be authentic. It is important for

organisations to transcend superficial relationships, community or happiness
towards engagement that is heartfelt, powerful engagement that is real and
robust.
Recognition : Potent employee engagement requires powerful recognition. It

is important to let the employees know the importance of what they are doing
and how their work connects to results.
Engage : Engagement is not a one-time survey measure or a steady state but

to fully experience and contribute to the dynamic elements of work.
Enliven work roles : A role is a set of behaviors, rights and obligations at

work. The organization must be careful to guard employees against too many
roles or role overload while also fully being in the roles that contribute to
results, relationships, and engagement.
110
Excel at performance : Engagement for results can contribute to effective

performance management. Performance demonstrates engagement while
engagement can help excel at performance. Good employee engagement
should foster star performers.
Esteem organization : This is all about finding out if the employees are
proud to work for their organization and equally proud to recommend their
organization and be constant brand ambassadors.
Foster community : The essence of work is relationships and community.

Organizations that do not transform themselves into communities are in
danger of becoming obsolete or ignored.
Serve customers : This point is about finding out if the employees feel
served by the organization and management so much so that they in turn
offer the same level of service to the external and internal customers.
Develop career : Work should offer benefits back to employees. Employees

should experience both personal and professional development through work
ranging from courses and learning to developing their own strengths, value,
visibility, and engagement.
Leverage energies : The raw material of engagement is energy. Powerful

engagement involves mastery of physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and
organizational energy. Energy not time is the vital resource for engaged
working.
111
Experience Well-Being : Ultimately work should contribute to employee wellbeing. An organizations results are dependent upon the health and
productivity of individual employees.
The topic of leadership styles affecting different employee related parameters

now becoming increasingly important and the awareness of the same is also
increasing. This awareness is very crucial for the organizational effectiveness.
Organizations will find it tough to maintain their growth and effectiveness
unless their human resources are complementary to their operations. The
modern world is far more competitive and volatile than ever before causing
organizations to gain competitive advantage whenever and wherever possible
in todays globalized world. Organizational survival and success depends on
how organisations and their senior leaders respond to these challenges. For
this, organizations have to effectively evolve internal capabilities for
enhancing speed, quality, learning and building employee competencies. Just
like capabilities need to develop, similarly for better productivity employee
commitment needs to be more and it is possible only when the culture breeds
professionals who are inherently motivated. Capability has to be supported by
commitment which comes through desire to excel, can-do attitude towards
work, co-operation, involvement. The culture of organisations also create an
awareness of what is ideal and desirable. Organizations are not static
systems but keep evolving and developing, forced by the dynamic
environment.
112
CHAPTER 4
OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY
113
CHAPTER 4
OBJECTIVES, HYPOTHESIS AND RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
4.1 Statement of Research Problem
This study is designed to assess the impact of leadership styles on a)
employee commitment and b) motivation, with reference to demographics like
age, education, marital status, occupational status, income, length of service,
gender and career progression. In this study the independent variable would
be Leadership Style, at the levels of transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire. The dependent variables would be employee Motivation and
Commitment, with levels of commitment being normative, continuance and
affective.
The selected organisations have long recognised human capital as a
competitive advantage. Thus, for the organisational vision to become a reality,
its leadership relies on employees to execute strategic objectives. The
employees knowledge, experience, skills, expertise, the ability to collectively
innovate and their decision making processes is key to the growth.
Despite the importance of the subjects of leadership and employee
commitment and motivation, the researcher did not find any study that
determined the relationship between these variables in the corporate setting.
Therefore the researcher focussed on these three areas leadership styles,
employee commitment, employee motivation. The research also investigated
the relationship between these variables and determined the effects of
114
selected demographic variables upon the levels of commitment and the levels
of motivation.
4.2 Research Questions

1. To what extent are the employees committed to their organisations ?
2. What are the effects of the managers leadership styles on employee
motivation ?
commitment ?
4. Is there a difference in the level of commitment among employees on
the basis of demographic and job related variables ?
5. Is there a difference in the level of motivation among employees on the
basis of demographic and job related variables ?
4.3 Scope of the Study

The study is currently restricted to the level of permanent full-time
employees of support functions and operations, in the western, eastern
and northern states, of selected organisations in FMCG, Oil and Petroleum
segment, who are exposed to management researches and studies of
similar kinds. The premise was that confirmed employees have spent
significant amount of time in the organisation and are equally affected by
some basic processes which could influence their perspectives on
commitment and motivation. The study could also be extended to the nonmanagement category of employees at the lower grades, where they could
judge the leadership styles of supervisors managing them. It could also be
115
extended to other states of India and even globally, since all these
organisations have a significant global presence.
4.4 Purpose of the Study

The results of the study would equip the organisational leadership to
determine which styles to adopt so that the employees are more
committed and motivated and hence have a much better engagement and
connect with the organisation. Adoption of the appropriate style will help
induce trust and loyalty for the organisation. This, in turn, will help
organisations deal better with the challenge of employee retention in the
fast growing corporate world.
4.5 Objectives
1. To assess the impact of relationship between Transformational
Leadership Styles and level of Employee Commitment
2. To assess the impact of relationship between Transactional
3. To assess the impact of relationship between Laissez Faire
4. To assess the impact of relationship between Transformational
Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation
5. To assess the impact of relationship between Transactional
Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation
6. To assess the impact of relationship between Laissez Faire
Leadership Styles and level of Employee Motivation
116
4.6 Statement of Hypotheses

The following hypotheses would be tested :
H01 : There is no significant relation between Transformational leadership style
H11 : There is a significant relation between Transformational leadership style
H02 : There is no significant relation between Transactional leadership style
H12 : There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and
Employee Commitment
H03 : There is no significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style
H13: There is a significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and
Employee Commitment
H04 : There is no significant relation between Transformational leadership style
H14 : There is a significant relation between Transformational leadership style
H05 : There is no significant relation between Transactional leadership style
H15 : There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and
Employee Motivation
117
H06 : There is no significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style

H16 : There is a significant relation between Laissez-faire leadership style and
Employee Motivation
4.7 Research Methodology

Sampling Design:
This study was conducted in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Kolkata & Delhi. The
targeted population for the study was the confirmed (not on probation), fulltime employees from support functions and Operations, who are exposed to
management studies and researches of similar kinds.
Sample size:
The size of the population is 650. The margin of error has been considered as
4% and the desired confidence interval is 95%.
Sample Size: According to formula SS = Z2 * (P) * (1 p) / C2
Where Z = Z value (e.g., 1.96 for 95% confidence), P = Percentage picking
a choice, expressed as decimal (.5 used for sample size needed)
C = Confidence interval expressed as decimal (e.g., .04 = + 4)
Total Population is about 650 for the targeted group. Hence total number of
sample is 295.
function. About 326 were considered since they were duly filled up.
118
Figure 4.1 : Distribution of Respondents

Sl no
Cities
No of Respondents
Mumbai
146
Navi Mumbai
65
Kolkata
50
Delhi
65
TOTAL
326
This formula is the one used by Krejcie & Morgan in their 1970 article
Determining Sample Size for Research Activities (Educational and
Psychological Measurement, #30, pp. 607-610).
For the final study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal
consistency of each measure.
Based on the population, 85 questionnaires were distributed on email and
through the HR function. About 50 were considered to be valid since they
were duly filled up. Hence 50 questionnaires were processed for further
research findings.For the pilot study, reliability tests were performed to assess
the internal consistency of each measure.
119
Primary data source :

Primary sources used allowed the researcher to form reasoned conclusions,
base conclusions on evidence, and connect primary sources to the context in
which they were created, synthesizing information from multiple sources.
"Primary sources originate in the time period that historians are studying.
They vary a great deal. They may include personal memoirs, government
documents, transcripts of legal proceedings, oral histories and traditions,
archaeological and biological evidence, and visual sources like paintings and
photographs. "(Storey, William Kelleher. Writing History: A guide for Students.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999, p.18).
Descriptive Survey :
The survey includes correlational research and survey research, yielding
quantitative information that was summarized through statistical analyses.
Review of literature and other available information from various published
and unpublished reports of these organisations, data on these industry
segments available in the public domain, journals, and periodicals, books,
newspapers, etc. (including databases like EBSCO, Pro-quest, and others).
Field Survey:
Research Tool:
The research instrument used for collecting primary data was Questionnaire,
which is the most widely used data collection methods in evaluation research.
The Questionnaires used for the final data collection were close ended
questionnaires. Questionnaires helped gather information on attitudes,
opinions, behaviors, facts, and other information.
120
In the final step, reliability of the questionnaire using a pilot test was carried
out. Reliability refers to random error in measurement. Reliability indicates the
accuracy or precision of the measuring instrument (Norland, 1990). The pilot
test attempted to answer the question, does the questionnaire consistently
measure whatever it measures?
To assess reliability of knowledge questions, test-retest or split-half is

appropriate. Data collected from pilot test was analyzed using SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Sciences). A reliability coefficient (alpha) of .70
or higher was considered acceptable reliability.
A questionnaire with four parts was used for different variables of the study :
1. Part A for Demographic details
2. Part B for Employee Commitment
3. Part C for Leadership Styles (i)
Transformational; (ii) Transactional; (iii) Laissez-Faire
4. Part D for Employee Motivation
Part A : Employee Demographics

This part contains statements concerning general information about the
participant and helps us understand the demographics of the respondents
who took the survey. The questionnaire aims to find out for respondents the
Age, Educational background, Marital status, Occupation, Monthly gross
promoted last.
121
Part B : Employee Commitment

This part of the questionnaire provides the Researcher with information on the
employees state of mind and attitude pertaining to his/her work area and
sense of alignment and loyalty to the organisation.
Part C : Leadership Styles
The first section of this part of the questionnaire deals with background
information about the manager available/observable to the employee. The
second section has questions which help establish the leadership style of the
Head of Function (or the person the respondent reports to), as he/she
employee perceives/observes it.
Part D : Work Motivation
This part of the questionnaire provides the Researcher with information about
how the employee feels about the job.
Pilot Study:
potential respondents (elements) in a geographical area. The potential
respondents were the group of team members working for a manager in that
organisation. Out of 85, 50 respondents instruments were analysed. The final
questionnaire had been moderated based on the pilot study.
For the pilot study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal
consistency of each measure. Cronbachs Alpha coefficients were reported as
follows: 0.806 for the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, 0.891 for the
122
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), 0.834 for the Employee

Motivation Questionnaire.
Data Collection for the Main Research Study
Data Collection began after the approval was acquired from the dissertation
committee headed by Dr.R.Gopal (Director of the Department of Business
Management).
4.8 Data Processing

The survey technique was used to collect data from the respondents and
understand and predict some aspects of the behavior of the population of
interest. In the process of sampling, selection has been done from a bigger
group (the sampling population) to become the basis of estimating or
predicting the prevalence of an unknown piece of information, situation or
outcome regarding the bigger group.
The population is not the entire population of a given geographical area of a
given organisation, but the predefined set of potential respondents (elements)
in a geographical area. The research design is Descriptive, which, as
Zikmund (2003) explained, provides answers to who, what, when, where, and
how questions, and Causal.
function within six - eight months. About 326 were considered since they were
duly filled up.
123
Appropriate questionnaire with four parts were developed to collect the

responses.
The researcher secured permission from the Heads of HR functions of each
of the organisations before conducting the data collection by distributing the
questionnaire among the employees of the departments. The questionnaire
was validated and the reliability of the questionnaire was measured too. Each
questionnaire included a cover letter containing statements assuring the
respondent of anonymity and confidentiality. The letter also included clear and
specific directions to fill up the instrument of the study.
To help solicit the sample and prevent management intervention, the
researcher distributed and collected the entire questionnaire herself. The
organisations helped the researcher by providing her the necessary
information needed in the data collection. The researcher also explained the
purpose and benefit of the study and encouraged the respondents to
complete the questionnaire.
Before distributing any questionnaire, the researcher met with the
Heads/Director of the departments of the selected organisations and
explained the distribution and collection plan. To obtain a high response rate
and more accurate results, the researcher requested that each department
head himself/herself distributed the questionnaire to all the employees. It
should be noted that a small percentage of the targeted population did not
participate in the study for various reason. For example, the employees who
were on vacation or participating in training or MDP programmes outside the
organisation were absent during the study. In addition a few employees
refused to participate and answer the questionnaire. However, the researcher
124
took utmost care to ensure that the confidentiality of responses was

maintained and the commitment was communicated to employees aptly. The
decision to base the study on the following cities was arrived at after
discussion with the respective function heads of the organisations where the
survey took place.
Given below is the distribution of the data collected from different cities of
India in tabular form:
City-wise Distribution of Respondents :
Sl no Cities
No of respondents
Mumbai
146
Navi Mumbai
65
Kolkata
50
Delhi
65
TOTAL
326
The responses observed from each of the items in the instrument used for
primary data collection were scored and tabulated into a master sheet. The
statistical
tools
included
co-relation,
regression
techniques,
multiple
regression, ANOVA, descriptive statistics have been applied to draw logical

conclusion. The analysis was done using Statistical Package of Social
Sciences (SPSS). The analysed data were finally interpreted to draw the
conclusions and reported with the objective of the study in view.
125
Organizational Commitment of Employees

Organizational
commitment
of
employees
was
measured using
the
organisational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Porter and his

associates in 1974.This instrument was designed to measure the relative
.strength of an individuals identification with and involvement in a particular
organisation.
According to this definition, organizational commitment could be characterized
by at least three factors:
1. a strong belief in and acceptance of the organizations goals and
values;
2. a willingness to invest considerable effort on behalf of the organization;
3. a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Mowday et
al.1982).
The Employee Commitment Questionnaire consists of 15 items, and each
item was measured on a seven point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To reduce response bias, six items (item
3,7,9,11,12 and 15) in the instrument were negatively phrased and reverse
scored. To arrive at a summary indicator of employee commitment, scores for
all items were summed and divided by 15. The higher the score, the greater
the individuals commitment to the organization. Past researches confirmed
that the questionnaire showed sufficient validity and reliability. Many
researchers suggested using the OCQ. For example, Morrow (1983)
supported the use of the OCQ and argued that the questionnaire has received
substantial support regarding its reliability and validity. Mowday et al. (1979)
126
conducted a study using the OCQ. Their results showed a consistently high
coefficient alpha, ranging from .82 to .93. They added that the questionnaire
has demonstrated good psychometric properties and has been widely used by
researchers. It has been used in at least 100 published studies, of which 17
were international in scope (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).
Reliability has been defined as a matter of whether a particular technique,
applied repeatedly to the same object, would yield the same result each time.
Validity refers to the extent to which an empirical measure adequately reflects
the real meaning of the concept under consideration.
Employee Motivation
Work Motivation scale with 10 items was used to provide the researcher with
information about how the respondents felt about their jobs. The questionnaire
highlighted the dimensions of job satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, work
environment and recognition. It contains 10 evaluative statements about the
respondents job. Nine of these were designed to cover aspects of Existence,
Relatedness and Growth from Alderfers ERG model. A tenth item was added
on job satisfaction since it is considered to play a key role in motivation.
Ten 7-point scales cover dimensions of discretion (freedom to choose, what,
when and how activities are carried out, job demands (control vs lack of
control over speed of activity), as well as variety, degree of physical and
mental effort, social contact and use of particular skills and abilities. The
results of past study done by George Shouksmith, Department of Psychology,
Massey University, as recorded in A Construct Validation of A Scale for
Measuring Work Motivation, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 1989, 18,
127
76-81, offer a clear construct validation of the Work Motivation Scale, as a

general motivation measure which reflects Alderfers (1972) ERG model.
Three factors assess separately the extent to which a job meets workers
material needs, provides positive interpersonal support and offers potential for
development, growth and actualization.
Leadership Styles
Leadership styles were measured using the latest version of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Form -5x-short) developed by Bass and
Avolio (1995). This questionnaire (MLQ), which has been tested and revised
over the years, is often used to measure transformational, transactional and
Laissez-faire Leadership style. The central thesis of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire is derived from Basss (1985) augmentation theory of
transactional and transformational leadership. According to Bass and Avolio
(1990), transformational leadership is a leadership style that strives to elevate
the desires of individual followers for achievement and self-development,
while also promoting the development of the group and organization. Further,
transformational leadership .goes beyond exchanging inducements for
desired performance by developing, intellectually stimulating, and inspiring
followers to transcend their own self-interests for higher collective purpose,
mission, or vision.(Howell & Avolio,1993,p.891). With regard to transactional
and laissez-faire leadership styles, Burns (1978) viewed transactional as a
type of leadership based on an exchange process between leaders and
followers. Laissez-faire leadership represents a style used by leaders who try
to avoid responsibility and decision-making (Bass, 1997).
128
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire consists of 142 statements about the

behaviour of the leader. There are two forms of the MLQ -- the Leader Form,
which is completed by the leader themselves, and the Rater Form, which is
completed by the leaders associates. As the Leader form would naturally
contain a bias, the Rater form is considered to be the more important of the
two. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire has been used in the
evaluation of leaders in corporate and public organizations, as well as the
military.
There are several other tools in existence, although few as prevalent or
comprehensive as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. They are:
Transformational Leadership Behaviour Inventory (TLI) -- Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990)
Leader Assessment Inventory (LAI) - Warner Burke (1994)
Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ) - Alimo-Metcalfe and

Alban-Metcalfe (2001)
Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL) - Carless, Wearing

and Mann( 2000)
Follower Belief Questionnaire and the Attributes of Leader Behaviour

Questionnaire - Behling and McFillan (1996)
CK scale - Conger and Kanungo (1988)
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) - Kouzes and Posner (1998)
15 item rating scale - Rafferty and Griffin (2004)
Although the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is one of the most

widespread tools for measuring Transformational Leadership, it would make
129
sense that as the development of this field continues, the use of several tools
to measure effectiveness would be wise.
In the present study, employees were asked to rate their immediate
supervisors basis their managerial traits. The questionnaires for measurement
were taken into account as per the applicability. Therefore, the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire rater form (5x-short) was used to measure the
transformational, transactional and Laissez-faire leadership style as perceived
by the employees. The current study included only 29 items of Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The scales related to Transformational Leadership
were
idealized
influence
(attributed),
idealized
influence
(behaviour),
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration.

Contingent rewards, management exception (active), management by
exception (passive), were associated with Transactional Leadership scales.
The remaining two scales indicated laissez faire leadership and satisfaction
with leader. While all the leadership style scale has four items, satisfaction
with the leader scale has only two items. Each item was rated on a Five point
frequency scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always). The
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire scores are the average score from the
items on the scale. The score can be derived by summing the items and
dividing by the number of items that make up the scale.
The validity and reliability of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire have
been empirically established. Based on the results of nine studies conducted
on various organizations and using the experimental form of the MLQ (5X),
the questionnaire showed a satisfactory level of internal consistency. This was
checked both during the pilot test and the final survey. Further, the reliability
130
for the total items and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .74 to .94
(Bass & Avolio, 1995) and exceeded the standard reliability cut-off of .70
recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). In general, the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (5x-Short) appears to be an adequate test with
good construct validity, adequate reliability, and a good research base. This
has been proved in ample researches conclusively in the field of leadership
and the results have been used widely by subsequent researchers all the
world over.
Demographic Variables
Age
This variable was measured by asking the respondent to choose the category
for his age range. Four categories were included. The first category was 2029 years, the second category was 30-39 years, the third category was 40-49
years and the fourth category was 50 years and above.
Level of Education
Level of education was measured by asking the respondent to select the
category that indicated his educational level. There were four categories,
ranging from graduation through various streams (BA/BCom/BSc/BE), Master
Degree (MA/MCom/MSc/ME), Master Degree (MBA/MMS) to a Doctorate
degree.
Marital Status
Marital status was measured by asking the respondents to mark the category
that described their status. Married and Single were the categories to choose
from.
131
Occupational Level
This variable was measured by asking the respondent to select the category
that indicated his occupational position. The occupational level scale
consisted of four categories. The first category included the operational
executives, the second category included the middle managers, the third
category included the senior managers and the fourth category included the
senior executives.
Compensation
Compensation (gross monthly income) was measured by asking the
respondents to select the category that reflected their salary range. The first
category included salaries between INR 35,000-50,000, the second category
included salaries ranging from INR 51,000-99,000, the third category included
salaries from INR 1,00,000-1,99,000 and the fourth category included salaries
of INR 2,00,000 and above.
Length of Service
Length of service was measured by asking the respondents to select the
category that indicated the number of years of their employment in the
organisations they were currently in service.
Gender
Gender was measured by asking the respondents to select the category that
indicated the male and female status of the respondents. The first category
(coded 1) included the male and the second category (coded 2) included the
female. According to the gender indicated by the respondents, data was fed
into the SPSS system.
132
Internal Promotion
Internal promotion was measured by asking the respondents to select the
category that reflected the tenure since their last promotion. The period of the
internal promotion of the respondents were broken into three categories which
indicated the promotion taken place within the time span of the respondents
career in a particular institute. The first category indicated the period ranging
from 0-2 years, the second category indicated the period ranging from 36years, the third category included the period ranging from 7-10 years.
Reliability of the Study Instrument
Most psychological societies (e.g., British Psychological Society) and
academics (e.g., Devellis, 1991) suggest that an acceptable level of reliability
for psychometric tests is as follows :
Table 4.2 : Acceptable levels of Cronbachs Alpha coefficient
Alpha coefficient
Implied reliability
below .60
Unacceptable
between .60 and .65
Undesirable
between .65 and .70
minimally acceptable
between .70 and .80
Respectable
between .80 and .90
very good
much above .90
consider shortening the scale
(DeVellis, 1991, p.85)

133
Reference:
DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage
Publications.
In this pilot study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal
consistency of each measure. Cronbachs Alpha coefficients were reported as
follows: 0.806 for the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, 0.891 for the
Multi-factor Leadership Style Questionnaire, 0.834 for the Employee
Motivation Questionnaire.
Data Analysis Tools
To analyze the collected data and test the expectations and hypotheses, the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS: Version 20) was used.
A number of Statistical tools were used. These included descriptive statistics
to describe different characteristics of the respondents. Simple individual
regression analysis was utilized to analyze the relationships between the
dependent variable (organizational commitment) and each of the selected
independent variables. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine
the magnitude of the relationship between
the dependent variable
(organizational commitment) and all the independent variables used in the

study. Correlational statistics were used to describe and explore the
relationships between all the variables used in the study. Finally, one way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the differences in the
level of organizational commitment among groups on the basis of the
employees demographic details such as age, educational qualifications,
134
marital status, occupational status, monthly compensation, length of service,

gender, internal promotion.
Interpretation and Report Writing:
The analysed data were finally interpreted to draw the conclusions and
reported with the objective of the study in view.
4.9 Limitations of the Study

This study has some potential limitations. It may be noted that a causality
relation cannot be inferred due to the cross-sectional nature of the data,
although, it is one of the most-used methods in applied and field psychological
research (especially in organizations, Spector, 1994). Future investigations,
then, should adopt an experimental or longitudinal design. The data used in
the study were acquired using the same questionnaire and this procedure
might have led to common method bias that might have inflated the
relationship among factors. A second one is represented by the fact that the
criteria variables have been assessed by self-report measures, which may
reflect participants' perceptions rather than objective realities.
The second limitation is about the duration which is limited and short. A longer
duration would have given the researcher time to study a broader crosssection of employees in corporate sector. Along with three dimensions of
leadership, namely transformational, transactional and laissez-faire, the study
could have explored charismatic style of leadership as well, to give it a wellrounded character. Also, some funding would have enabled the researcher to
travel extensively and interview corporate employees, even globally, to get a
better insight on the topic of study. The study could then also have a higher
135
coverage to include other functions, like sales, business development,

marketing.
The aspect of culture in different parts of India and its impact on the leaderfollower relationship has not been explored here. The relation cannot be
inferred due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, although, it is one of the
most-used methods in applied and field psychological research (especially in
organizations, Spector, 1994). Culture affects behaviour patterns, but that
would have called for a study in itself and hence not covered here.
The aspect of culture is of paramount importance since it has been concluded
from past studies that even in a complex system, one person could make a
vast difference, contributing to reduction of turnover and better retention of
direct staff. Taylor (2004) reported that leaders and their skill in building a
climate of retention, a culture that speaks to employees in a way that
encourages them to stay, will be an organizations best defense against
unwanted turnover. Leaders are the secret weapon in keeping valued talent
longer glued to the organisation. Leadership is believed to be a critical
success factor in the culture change movement.
136
CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH FINDINGS
137
CHAPTER 5
RESEARCH FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the study. It is divided into four sections.
The first section includes the pilot study report. The second section includes a
description of the respondents characteristics of the main research study.
The third section contains statistical results of the correlation analyses of the
items in the three instruments used, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) Rater Form (5x-Short) developed by Bass and Avolio (1995), the
Employee Commitment Questionnaire (ECQ) developed by Porter and his
associates (1974) and the Work Motivation Scale. Also, the third section
includes the range, mean, median, and standard deviation of all the scales
used in the current study. Results of the expectations and hypotheses testing
and the complete regression model are presented in the fourth section.
5.2 Pilot Study Report

potential respondents (elements) in a geographical area. The potential
respondents were the group of team members working for a manager in that
organisation. 50 respondents questionnaires were analysed since they were
duly filled up and valid. The final questionnaire had been moderated based on
138
the pilot study. The reliability test of the questionnaires was made and was
found to be good and in line with the accepted norms for research studies.
Population and Sample Selection of Pilot Study:
This study was conducted in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Kolkata & Delhi. The
targeted population for the study was the confirmed (not on probation), fulltime employees from support functions and Operations, who are exposed to
management studies and researches of similar kinds.
Data Collection:
Data Collection began after the approval has been acquired from the
Dissertation Committee, headed by Dr.R.Gopal (Director and Head of the
Department of Business Management, Padmashree Dr.D.Y. Patil University).
In areas where the study was conducted, the researcher took permission from
the Heads of HR functions, before conducting the data collection by
distributing the questionnaire among the employees. The questionnaire was
validated and the reliability of the questionnaire was measured too.
The questionnaires included a cover letter containing statements assuring the
respondent of anonymity and confidentiality. The letter also included clear and
specific directions to fill up the instrument of the study.
Measurement of the Data
The questionnaires used in this study were four separate sets to measure the
variables and test the hypotheses. They were meant to be filled up by the
subordinate
employees
working
under
the
leadership
of
the
supervisor/Head/Director of the department.
139
The first part included eight questions regarding demographic backgrounds

about the respondents such as age, education, marital status, occupational
status, compensation, length of services, gender, internal promotion. The
second part was composed of items concerning leadership styles (29 items).
The third part of the instrument dealt with organisational commitment (15
items). The fourth part dealt with the Work Motivation Scale (10 items).
5.3 Description of Respondents Characteristics for Pilot

Study
The questionnaire used for this study included 8 items concerning the
respondents characteristics. They were asked about their age, education,
marital status, occupational status, compensation (monthly income), and
length of services, gender, and internal promotion.
Demographic Variables
Age
This variable was measured by asking the respondent to choose the category
for his age range. Four categories were included. The first category was 2029 years, the second category was 30-39 years, the third category was 40-49
years and the fourth category was 50 years and above.
Table 5.3.1(i) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Age
Age Group-wise breakup of respondents (Years)
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
140
21-30
12
24.0
24.0
24.0
31-40
21
42.0
42.0
66.0
41-50
14
28.0
28.0
94.0
> 50
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
The age range of the respondents are 21-50 years and above. 12
respondents are between the ages 21-30, 21 respondents are between the
ages 31-40, 14 respondents are between the ages 41-50, 3 respondents are
above 50 years of age.
It indicates that the plurality of the respondents (42%) is between the age 3140 years and the lowest number of respondents (6%) is in the Above 50
years category. It also reveals that 24% respondents are between the ages
21-30, 28% respondents are between the ages 41-50.
Level of Education
Level of education was measured by asking the respondent to select the
category that indicated his educational level. There were four categories,
ranging from graduation through various streams (BA/BCom/BSc/BE), Master
Degree (MA/MCom/MSc/ME), Master Degree (MBA/MMS) to a Doctorate
degree. The educational categories were decided based on the profile of
employees in these organisations. The following categories were considered
to encompass the educational qualifications of all employees in the
organisations surveyed.
141
Table 5.3.1(ii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Education

Education
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
BSc / BE /
12
24.0
24.0
24.0
16
32.0
32.0
56.0
22
44.0
44.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME /
MCA
Valid
Master Degree
/ MBA / MMS
Total
It shows that the education range is from Bachelor degree to Master degree.
There are 22 employees with MBA/MMS degrees, 16 employees with Masters
degree in other faculties and 12 are with Bachelor degree in other faculties.
The table also indicates that 44% of the academic faculties are with
MBA/MMS and 32% are with Masters degree in other faculties.
Marital Status
Marital status was measured by asking the respondents to mark the category
that described their status. Married and Single were the categories to choose
from. Based on the responses of employees data was coded for tabulation in
SPSS.
142
Table 5.3.1(iii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Marital Status

Marital Status
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Married
41
82.0
82.0
82.0
Single
18.0
18.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
It shows that there are 41 employees who are married and 9 are single.
Hence the plurality of respondents (82%) is married and only 18% are single.
Occupational Level
This variable was measured by asking the respondent to select the category
that indicated his occupational position. The occupational level scale
consisted of four categories. The first category included the operational
executives, the second category included the middle managers, the third
category included the senior managers and the fourth category included the
senior executives. The operational executives were typically the front end and
backend who would be the first rung in the corporate ladder, the middle
managers would have a span of control encompassing these operational
executives, senior managers would typically be function heads and senior
executives would be responsible for entire business of a region or zone. All
the organisations studied had a broad categorisation of this sort.
143
Table 5.3.1(iv) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Occupational

status
Occupation
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Operational
11
22.0
22.0
22.0
20
40.0
40.0
62.0
13
26.0
26.0
88.0
12.0
12.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
Executive
Middle
manager
Valid
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
The pluralities of respondents (40%) are in the middle level category that is
the middle managers, followed by 26% of respondents who are senior
managers; 22% are Operational executives and 12% are the senior
executives.
Compensation
Compensation (monthly income) was measured by asking the respondents to
select the category that reflected their salary range in categories. The first
category included salaries between INR 35,000-50,000, the second category
included salaries ranging from INR 51,000-99,000, the third category included
144
salaries from INR 1,00,000-1,99,000 and the fourth category included salaries
of INR 2,00,000 and above.
Table 5.3.1(v) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Gross Monthly
Compensation (in INR)
Monthly
Gross
Frequency
Percent
Compensation (INR)
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2,00,000 and
1
2.0
2.0
2.0
18
36.0
36.0
38.0
21
42.0
42.0
80.0
10
20.0
20.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
Above
1,00,000Valid
1,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
Table indicates that the majority of respondents (42%) falls within INR 51,00099,000 per month, 36% falls within INR 1,00,000-1,99,000, 20% falls within
INR 35,000-50,000, 2% falls within INR 2,00,000 and Above. The
compensation had different breakups for different cadres and accordingly the
net income would vary, but due to the sensitive nature of this datapoint,
further exploration has been avoided.
145
Length of Service
Length of service was measured by asking the respondents to select the
category that indicated the number of years of their employment in the
organisations they were currently in service.
Table 5.3.1(vi) : Frequency distribution by Length of Service
Length of Service (Years)
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
0-10
13
26.0
26.0
26.0
11-20
29
58.0
58.0
84.0
21-30
10.0
10.0
94.0
> 30
6.0
6.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
Total
This shows that 13 respondents have served from 0-10 years in their
corporate career, 29 respondents have served from 11-20 years, 5
respondents have served from 21-30 years, 3 respondents have served for
more than 30 years in their corporate career.
The table indicates that the plurality of respondents (58%) are in the 11-20
years service category. 26% are in the 0-10 years, 10% are in the 21-30
years, 6% are in the more than 30 years of service category. This meant that
146
the majority of response came from employees who are quite acclimatised to
the organisation.
Gender
Gender was measured by asking the respondents to select the category that
indicated their male and female status. The first category (coded 1) included
the male and the second category (coded 2) included the female.
Table 5.3.1(vii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Gender
Gender
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
41
82.0
82.0
82.0
Female
18.0
18.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
The Table shows that 41% of the respondents are male employees and 9% of
the respondents are females.
Internal Promotion
Internal promotion was measured by asking the respondents to select the
category that reflected the tenure since their last promotion. The period of the
internal promotion of the respondents were broken into three categories which
indicated the promotion taken place within the time span of the respondents
career in a particular institute. The first category indicated the period ranging
147
from 0-2 years, the second category indicated the period ranging from 36years, the third category included the period ranging from 7-10 years.
Table 5.3.1(viii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by
Internal
Promotion
In number
Frequency
Percent
of years
Valid
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
16.0
16.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
10
20.0
20.0
50.0
2.0
2.0
52.0
18.0
18.0
70.0
4.0
4.0
74.0
8.0
8.0
82.0
11
2.0
2.0
84.0
NA
16.0
16.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
148
The respondents were also asked to fill up data pertaining to their managers
and the data distribution is as follows:
Table 5.3.2(i) : Data on Education of Managers as filled by Respondents
Qualifications of Manager
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
BSc / BE / BCom /
3
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
12.0
43
86.0
86.0
98.0
Doctorate
2.0
2.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
BA
MA / MCom / MSc /
Valid
ME / MCA
Master Degree / MBA

/ MMS
Table 5.3.2(ii) : Data on Gender of Managers as filled by Respondents

Gender of
Manager
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
47
94.0
94.0
94.0
Female
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
149
Table 5.3.2(iii) : Descriptive Statistics as filled by Respondents

Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Age
50
24
53
38.04
8.405
50
.00
36.00
14.2490
9.13018
50
.00
8.00
3.1300
1.78088
50
35
57
45.50
6.072
Length of
Service
Years of working
with current
Manager
Age of Manager
5.4 Testing the Hypotheses

The Hypotheses of this study addressed the field of Leadership,
Organizational Commitment and Employee Motivation. In the current study
there were 6 hypothesis tested. To test this hypothesis, some appropriate
statistical tools such as frequency analysis, Analysis of variance (ANOVA),
and Pearsons correlation techniques are used.
In this study, for the Pilot Testing, a total of 75 questionnaires were distributed
to employees working with different supervisors in different departments, out
of
which 50 were completed. Data was collected through survey
150
questionnaires from subordinates comprising white-collar employees who are

currently reporting to middle and senior level managers.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), 3rd edition (Bass & Avolio,
2004), was adapted and used to measure supervisors' leadership styles and
behaviors. The MLQ model was modified into a five-component scale to
facilitate coding and data interpretation. The MLQ with 29 items, comprises a
5 point Likert scale and the respondents were instructed to mark the most
suitable answer. The scale ranges from 0 to 4 as follows:
0 - Not at all
1 - Once in a while
2 - Sometimes
3 - Fairly often, and
4 - Frequently if not always
Employee Commitment scale with 15 items, used to measure employee

commitment to the organisation, highlighted the dimensions of loyalty to the
organisation, supervisor, dedication, oneness with the organisation, alignment
with the employment brand and internalization of organisational values.
The commitment model was modified into a seven-component scale to
facilitate coding and data interpretation, as follows :
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat agree
151
6 Agree
7 Strongly Agree
Work Motivation scale with 10 items was used to provide the researcher with
information about how the respondents felt about their jobs. The questionnaire
highlighted the dimensions of job satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, work
environment and recognition.
The Work Motivation model was modified into a seven-component scale to
facilitate coding and data interpretation, as follows:
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neutral
5 Somewhat agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly Agree
As to the demographic items, they are based on previous theoretical and

empirical studies. For the purpose of data collection, each participant received
an email package including a survey questionnaire with four parts of
exploratory questions a) demographics b) employee commitment c)
leadership style d) employee motivation respectively, instructions for surveys.
In essence, each respondent was required to assess and testify as to how
frequently the behaviours described by each of the statements are exhibited
by their leader.
152
Confidentiality was strictly maintained for all respondents. Participants were

discouraged from discussing their answers with colleagues or others in order
lest the likelihood of independent observation reduces. All the documents
collected from the participants were destroyed after this study. SPSS was
used to explore the relationships between the dependent and independent
variables the validity was established through suitable statistical means.
Correlation analysis was explored and reliability of the individual scales was
checked.
Table 5.4(i) : Reliability Statistics : Leadership style and Employee
Commitment
Reliability Statistics for Leadership Styles
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbachs Alpha Based on N of Items

Standardized Items
0.862
0.891
29
Reliability Statistics for Employee Commitment

Cronbach's Alpha

Standardized Items
0.713
0.806
15
Reliability of all scales was found to be very good as per the established
measures. Even compared to previous researches done in the field of
Leadership, the reliability scales were strong and hence the researcher
moved ahead with the study.
153
Research Findings
Table 5.4(ii) : Correlation of Transformational, Transactional and Laissez
faire styles with Employee Commitment
Transactional Style (0-4)
Transformational Style (0-4)
**
Laissez Faire Style (0-4)
(0-4)
Transformational Style
Total Score (1-7)
Pearson
**
**
.485
.395
-.398
.000
.005
.004
50
50
50
.845
-.732
.000
.000
50
50
-.496
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Score (1-7)
Employee Commitment Total
Employee Commitment
Correlations (Pearsons R)
50
Pearson
**
.485
**
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
50
Pearson
50
**
**
.395
.845
.005
.000
50
50
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
50
50
154
Laissez Fairre Style (0-4)
Pearson
**
**
**
-.398
-.732
-.496
.004
.000
.000
50
50
50
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Group Statistics
Gender
Employee
Commitment
Total Score
(15 - 105)
Leadership
Style Total
Score
(0 116)
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
41
78.3171
3.65677
.57109
73.0000
6.48074
2.16025
Male
41
81.3902
10.92904
1.70683
Female
77.5556
11.18158
3.72719
Male
Female
Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
2.380
9.148
.041
.949
48
.347
-.426
48
.672
Employee Commitment Total Score (15 105)
Leadership Style Total Score
Work Motivation Total Score
(0 - 116)
(10 - 70)
155
Hypothesis 1: The Transformational Leadership style of the supervisors

has a positive impact on the level of Organizational commitment of
employees.
As shown in the tables above, the Pearsons correlation, indicated that there
was a positive relationship between the transformational leadership style and
organizational commitment of employees at a significant level (level of
confidence at .05). These results were consistent with the hypotheses
therefore the hypotheses was accepted.
Co-relation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Hypotheses 2: The transactional leadership style of the supervisors has
a positive impact on the level of Organizational commitment of
employees.
As shown in tables above, concerning the relationship between transactional
leadership style and organizational commitment level of employees. The
Pearson correlation result demonstrated that the relationship between the two
variables are positive and significant also (level of confidence at.05).The
results were consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was
supported.
Hypotheses 3: The laissez-faire leadership style of supervisors has a
negative impact on the level of Organizational commitment of
employees.
The results of the correlation analyses revealed that Laissez Faire
Leadership style has a negative impact on the level of Organizational
156
commitment of employees but statistically it is not significant. The results were

consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was supported.
A majority of the 50 respondents (82%) are males and the findings indicate
that there is a significant difference in employee commitment between male
and female employees (P=0.041). About 44% are management degree
holders, 32% have Masters degree and the rest are Graduates mostly in
Engineering.
As the Table indicates, co-relation between Transformational Leadership
styles and employee commitment is positive and the score is 0.485. Corelation between transactional style and employee commitment is also
positive and the score is 0.395. Respondents do not maximally differentiate
between transformational leadership behaviours in their evaluations, a
different pattern is found for the transactional part of the MLQ. The
transactional leadership scales are less related to each other which means
that transformational style of leadership is more effective than
transactional leadership style in bringing in the element of commitment
in employees.
The following three factors are often found: contingent reward, active
management-by-exception, and passive management-by-exception (Hater &
Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993).
Laissez-faire style, on the other hand, has a negative co-relation with
motivation. This means that employees are not satisfied under laissez-faire
leadership. All the co-relations are highly significant and reliability scores are
strong for all scales. The results and implications of this study provided
157
recommendations to increase the supervisor's leadership skills in order to

improve employee's commitment.
Table 5.4(iii) : Reliability Statistics of Leadership styles and Work
Motivation
Reliability Statistics for Work Motivation Scale
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized
N of Items
Items
.834
.834
10

Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
Items
.862
.891
29
Table 5.4(iv) : Correlation of Transformational, Transactional and

Laissez faire styles with Work Motivation
Total Score
Pearson
Correlation
(1-7)
Motivation
Work
Sig. (2tailed)
.277
.051
Laissez Fairre Style

(0-4)
Transactional Style
(0-4)
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Work Motivation
Total Score (1-7)
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
.602**
.329*
-.585**
.000
.020
.000
158
Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
Laissez Fairre Transactional
Transformational
50
50
50
50
50
Pearson
Correlation
.485**
.602**
.845**
-.732**
Sig. (2tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
50
50
50
50
50
.395**
.329*
.845**
-.496**
.005
.020
.000
50
50
50
50
50
-.398**
-.585**
-.732**
-.496**
.004
.000
.000
.000
50
50
50
50
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
.000
50
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
has a positive impact on the level of motivation of employees.
As shown in the table above, the Pearsons correlation, indicated that there
employee motivation at a significant level (level of confidence at .05). These
results were consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was
accepted.
a positive impact on the level of motivation of employees.
159
As shown in the table above, concerning the relationship between

transactional leadership style and motivation level of employees, the Pearson
correlation result demonstrated that the relationship between the two
variables are positive and significant (level of confidence at .05). The results
were consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was supported.
negative impact on the level of motivation of employees.
The results of the correlation analyses revealed that Laissez Faire
Leadership style has a negative impact on the level of employee motivation
but statistically it is not significant.
5.5 Main Study Report

The questionnaires used in this main research study were four separate sets
to measure the variables and test the hypotheses. They were meant to be
filled up by the subordinate employees working under the leadership of the
supervisor/Head/Director of the department.
The first part included eight questions regarding demographic backgrounds of
the respondents. The questionnaire aims to find out for respondents the Age,
Educational
background,
Marital
status,
Occupation,
Monthly
gross
promoted last. The second part, i.e., Employee Commitment Questionnaire
provides the Researcher with information on the employees state of mind and
attitude pertaining to his/her work area and sense of alignment and loyalty to
the organisation. The third part on Leadership Styles has questions which
help establish the leadership style of the Head of Function (or the person you
160
report to), as the employee perceives/observes it. The fourth part on Work
Motivation provides the Researcher with information about how the employee
feels about the job.
potential respondents in a given geographical area. The potential respondents
were the group of team members working for a manager in that organisation
in that location.
5.6 Description of Respondents Characteristics of the Main

Research Study
Frequency Distribution of Demographic Factors
Table 5.6(i) : Frequency distribution and percentages by Age
Age
Frequency
Percent
Group
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
(Years)
20-29
74
22.7
22.7
22.7
30-39
82
25.2
25.2
47.9
40-49
130
39.9
39.9
87.7
> = 50
40
12.3
12.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
The age range of the respondents was from 20 to 50 years and above. 74
respondents are in the age group 20-29 years, 82 respondents are in the age
161
group 30-39 years, 130 respondents are in the 40-49 years category and 40
respondents were more than 50 years of age.
It indicates that the plurality of respondents (39.9%) were between the ages of
40 and 49, and the lowest numbers of respondents (12.3%) were aged 50 or
above. It also reveals that 25.2% 0f the respondents were between the ages
of 30 and 39 and 22.7% are in 20-29 years.
Education
Table 5.6(ii) : Frequency distribution of the respondents by Education.
Education of
Frequency
Percent
Employee
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
BSc / BE /
82
25.2
25.2
25.2
78
23.9
23.9
49.1
166
50.9
50.9
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME /
Valid
MCA
Master
Degree
MBA / MMS
Total
It shows that there are 166 employees with their master degree in MBA/MMS
and 82 with BA/BCom/BSc /BE, 78 with MA/MCom/MSc /ME/MCA.
162
The table also indicates that the plurality of respondents is 50.9% of

employees who have an MBA degree and 25.2% are with BSc /BE/BCom/BA.
Marital Status
Table 5.6(iii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Marital status.
Marital
Frequency
Percent
Status
Valid
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Married
258
79.1
79.1
79.1
Single
68
20.9
20.9
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
It shows that 258 of the respondents were married and 68 of the respondents
were un-married. In other words, it states that 79.1% of the population from
whom the data were collected are married, 20.9% are single.
Occupational Status
Table 5.6(iv) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Occupation
Occupation
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Operational
75
23.0
23.0
23.0
154
47.2
47.2
70.2
Executive
Middle
Manager
163
Senior
Valid
69
21.2
21.2
91.4
28
8.6
8.6
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
This shows that 154 respondents belong to the category of middle managers,
75 were operational executives, 69 of them were senior managers and 28 of
them were senior executives. In other words, the pluralities of respondents
(47.2%) are in the middle managerial category, followed by 23% of
respondents who are operational executives, 21.2% are senior managers and
8.6% belong to the Senior Executive category.
Compensation (Gross Monthly Income)
Table 5.6 (v) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Compensation
Gross Monthly
Frequency
Percent
Salary (INR)
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2,00,000
17
5.2
5.2
5.2
121
37.1
37.1
42.3
128
39.3
39.3
81.6
and Above
1,00,0001,99,000
Valid
51,00099,000
164
35,00060
18.4
18.4
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
50,000
Total
The Table indicates 128 respondents get a monthly salary between 51,00099,000 per month, 121 respondents get within 1,00,000-1,99,000 per month
as their salary, 60 respondents get a salary within 35,000-50,000 per month,
and only 17 respondents get salary more than 2,00,000 per month. It shows
the plurality of respondents (39.3%) falls in high income group that is INR
51,000-99,000 per month, 37.1% of the respondents falls within 1,00,0001,99,000 per month, 18.4% falls within the earning of 35,000-50,000 per
month and a very low percentage of 5.2% falls in 2,00,000 lacs and above.
Length of Service
Respondents were asked to report how long they worked in their corporate
career. They were asked to select the category that indicates the number of
years they had spent working. The length of service of a professional greatly
determines how the response would be towards organisational parameters.
Table 5.6(vi) : Frequency distribution by Length of Service
Length
of
Frequency
Percent
Service
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
(Years)
< 5 Years
66
20.2
20.2
20.2
5-10
34
10.4
10.4
30.7
165
11-15
95
29.1
29.1
59.8
16-20
82
25.2
25.2
85.0
21-25
1.5
1.5
86.5
26-30
25
7.7
7.7
94.2
> 30
19
5.8
5.8
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
As shown in the table, 66 respondents have a work experience of upto 5

years, 34 respondents have worked between 5-10 years, 95 respondents
have worked between 11-15 years, 82 respondents have worked between 1620 years, 5 respondents have worked between 21-25 years, 25 respondents
have worked between 26-30 years and 19 respondents have worked for more
than 30 years.
In other words, 20.2% of respondents have been employed up to 5 years in
the organisations considered for the study, 10.4% of the respondents have
worked for 5-10 years. 29.1% have worked for 11-15 years. 25.2% have
worked for 16-20 years, 1.5% only have worked for 21-25 years, 7.7% have
worked for 26-30 years, 5.8% have worked for more than 30 years. Tenure of
service is known to be a significant determinant for the responses of an
employee towards leadership and organisational parameters.
166
Gender
Table 5.6(vii) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Gender
Gender
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
250
76.7
76.7
76.7
Female
76
23.3
23.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
This shows that out of the 326 respondents data analysed for the study, 250
were males and 76 were females. In other words, 76.7% of the respondents
are males and 23.3. % of the respondents are females.
Internal Promotion
Table 5.6(viii) : Frequency distribution by internal promotion
Promoted
Frequency
Percent
Span (Years)
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
0-2
76
23.3
23.3
23.3
3-6
160
49.1
49.1
72.4
7-10
33
10.1
10.1
82.5
> 10
1.5
1.5
84.0
Valid
167
Not
Promoted/Not
52
16.0
16.0
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
Applicable
Total
This shows that 76 employees had got a promotion within 0-2 years, 160
employees within 3-6years, 33 employees within 7-10 years of service, 5
employees were in more than 10 years category. 52 employees had either
never been promoted or the question was not applicable in their case.
In other words, 23.3% of the employees have experienced internal promotion
within a period of 0-2 years in their pursued employment, 49.1% have
experienced internal promotion within the time span of 3-6 years, 10.1% have
experienced internal promotion within the time span of 7-10 years, 1.5% more
than 10 years, 16% were in the category of not promoted / not applicable.
5.7 Testing the Hypotheses of the Main Research Study

The research addressed the field of Leadership, Employee Commitment and
Employee Motivation. This section deals with testing these hypotheses. In the
current study, there were 6 hypotheses tested. To test these expectations and
hypotheses, some appropriate statistical tools such as frequency analysis,
Correlation Analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and simple individual
regression techniques were used.
In this study, a total of 450 questionnaires were distributed to employees
working with different supervisors in different departments, out of which 326
were duly filled up, meeting all criteria. Data was collected through survey
168
questionnaires from subordinates comprising of white-collar employees who

are currently reporting to middle and senior level managers in the selected
organisations in corporate sector.
Research Findings
Reliability of Scales
As established in prior researches and confirmed by psychological societies
(eg British Psychological Society) and academics (eg Devellis, 1991), an
acceptable level of reliability for psychometric tests is 0.70 and above.
This was considered during all the surveys carried out and the results
interpreted thereafter.
In this study, reliability tests were performed to assess the internal
consistency of each measure and Cronbachs alpha co-efficient was found to
be
highly
satisfactory.
Reliability
of
individual
leadership
styles
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire, was tested as well.

Table 5.7.1 (i) : Reliability Transformational Style
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on

Standardized Items
.958
.959
N of Items
15
.827
15.954
.024
N of Items
.882
Variance
Maximum
.055
Maximum /
Minimum
Minimum
.602
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
Summary Item Statistics
15
169
Item-Total Statistics
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS5
LS6
LS7
LS8
LS9
LS13
LS14
LS15
LS16
LS17
LS18
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
44.55
44.40
44.54
44.21
44.28
44.34
44.24
44.35
44.54
44.33
44.44
44.60
44.21
44.27
44.58
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
92.402
93.588
91.031
104.828
95.680
98.015
93.840
95.403
96.495
96.891
97.417
95.546
96.824
95.187
97.524
Corrected
Item - Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.845
.793
.900
.364
.744
.756
.885
.794
.765
.706
.725
.760
.795
.836
.741
.861
.787
.900
.612
.801
.776
.869
.762
.739
.766
.778
.805
.810
.884
.875
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.954
.956
.953
.962
.957
.956
.954
.956
.956
.957
.957
.956
.956
.955
.957
Split-half Reliability
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Total N of Items
Correlation Between Forms
Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient
Equal Length
Unequal Length
.940
8a
.889
7b
15
.938
.968
.968
.951
a. The items are: LS1, LS3, LS5, LS7, LS9, LS14, LS16, LS18
b. The items are: LS2, LS4, LS6, LS8, LS13, LS15, LS17.
170
This research found the average Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient for the
Transformational style in the MLQ instrument to be 0.959, which is very good.
Table 5.7.1 (ii) : Reliability Transactional Style
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based

on Standardized Items
N of Items
.869
.876
.736
N of Items
.820
Variance
Maximum
.084
Maximum /
Minimum
Minimum
.468
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
9.780
.030
LS10
LS12
LS19
LS20
LS21
LS22
LS23
LS24
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
22.07
22.25
22.44
22.47
22.20
22.26
22.23
22.66
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
20.020
20.972
18.764
19.432
18.134
19.418
19.207
19.899
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.638
.573
.700
.682
.774
.655
.635
.411
.641
.567
.621
.654
.676
.722
.719
.355
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.852
.859
.844
.847
.835
.849
.852
.883
171
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.827
4a
.687
4b
8
.782
.878
.878
.873
Total N of Items
Equal Length
Unequal Length
s found the average Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient for the

Transactional style in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire to be 0.869,
which is very good.
Table 5.7.1 (iii) : Reliability Laissez faire Style
Inter-Item
Correlations
.561
.153
.798
.645
N of Items
N of Items
Variance
Maximum /
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
.870

Standardized Items
.885
Range
Cronbach's Alpha
5.223
.039
LS25
LS26
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
4.86
5.20
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
17.871
15.805
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.398
.806
.357
.724
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.909
.822
172
LS27
5.42
LS28
5.62
LS29
5.49
LS30
5.59
15.697
18.913
16.109
18.342
.786
.687
.852
.639
.737
.557
.795
.657
.826
.851
.816
.854
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.726
3a
.785
3b
6
.831
.907
.907
.899
Total N of Items
Equal Length
Unequal Length
a. The items are: LS25, LS27, LS29
b. The items are: LS26, LS28, LS30
Laissez faire style in the MLQ instrument to be 0.885, which is very good.
Therefore for the purposes of this research, the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire instrument is deemed to be a reliable measure of
transformational
leadership,
transactional
leadership
and
laissez-faire
leadership. The average Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient obtained for

the MLQ does substantiate the reliability of the MLQ. According to Bass and
Avolio (1997) and Whitelaw (2001), the MLQ is valid and reliable and has
been used extensively worldwide. A recent study conducted by Hayward et al
(2004) also produced Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficients of 0.771 and
0.691 for transformational and
transactional leadership,
respectively.
However, research conducted by Botha (2001), in South Africa, yielded

Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficients of 0.926, 0.372 and 0.660 for
transformational, transitional and laissez-faire leadership, respectively. The
173
Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficients of this research support the reliability

findings of Ackerman et al (2000) and Hayward et al (2004). Additionally, this
researchs average Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient for the MLQ
supports the findings of authors such as Bass and Avolio (1997), Ackerman et
al (2000) and Whitelaw (2001).
Table 5.7.1(iv) : Reliability Work Motivation
Cronbach's Alpha

Standardized Items
.854
.853
N of Items
10
.787
-5.840
.043
N of Items
.672
Variance
Maximum
-.115
Maximum
/ Minimum
Minimum
.370
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
10
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
WMS1
WMS2
48.72
48.60
40.603
39.219
.690
.765
.626
.726
.828
.820
WMS3
WMS4
WMS5
WMS6
WMS7
WMS8
49.50
49.04
48.46
48.83
48.89
48.64
39.734
40.740
42.772
45.558
44.538
40.409
.603
.705
.482
.259
.320
.608
.639
.624
.576
.478
.335
.644
.835
.827
.845
.864
.859
.834
174
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.649
5a
.762
5b
10
Total N of Items
.858
Equal Length
Unequal Length
.924
.924
.921
a. The items are: WMS1, WMS3, WMS5, WMS7, WMS9

b. The items are: WMS2, WMS4, WMS6, WMS8, WMS10
This research found the average Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient for the Work
Motivation Scale to be 0.854, which is quite good. Therefore, for this research, the
Work Motivation Scale is a reliable measure of motivation.
Table 5.7.1(v) : Reliability Organisational Commitment
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
Standardized Items
.796
.850
15
.696
.913
-3.201
.056
N of Items
Variance
Minimum
Maximum /
-.217
Range
Minimum
.274
Maximum
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item
15
Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected
Squared
Cronbach's
if Item
Variance if
Item-Total
Multiple
Alpha if Item
175
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Deleted
ECQ1
77.66
87.703
.301
.543
.793
ECQ2
77.94
81.929
.681
.754
.774
rECQ3
77.81
74.704
.632
.670
.765
ECQ4
79.27
83.679
.122
.398
.823
ECQ5
78.37
77.783
.676
.628
.767
ECQ6
77.76
82.486
.621
.576
.777
rECQ7
79.57
84.886
.286
.660
.793
ECQ8
78.75
73.737
.573
.785
.769
rECQ9
79.16
83.232
.175
.598
.812
ECQ10
78.08
80.864
.512
.729
.778
ECQ11
79.05
89.930
-.018
.436
.825
ECQ12
78.63
80.130
.510
.690
.778
ECQ13
77.47
83.155
.527
.566
.780
ECQ14
78.40
79.448
.697
.696
.769
ECQ15
78.21
75.089
.732
.839
.760
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
Total N of Items
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
.602
8a
.694
7b
15
.712
Equal Length
.832
Unequal Length
.832
.832
a. The items are: ECQ1, rECQ3, ECQ5, rECQ7, rECQ9, ECQ11, ECQ13,
ECQ15
b. The items are: ECQ2, ECQ4, ECQ6, ECQ8, ECQ10, ECQ12, ECQ14
Organisational Commitment Questionnaire to be 0.850, which is good. Therefore,
for this research, the OCQ instrument is a reliable measure of affective
commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Several studies
have been conducted to examine the reliability (Cronbachs Alpha coefficient).
176
Once the reliability of all scales were tested and found to be satisfactory,
Correlations were done and the tables below show the findings.
Statistical Results
In order to examine the validity of using regression techniques in this study,
the correlations among the independent variables were computed.
Table 5.7.1(vi): Inter correlations among the Leadership Styles and a)
Employee Commitment Measure and b) Work Motivation
Correlations
Employee
Work Motivation Total
Commitment
Total
Score (1-7)
Score (1-7)
Pearson
**
**
.313
.555
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Builds Trust
Pearson
Acts with Integrity
**
.660
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Inspires Others
**
.301
**
**
.335
.616
.000
.000
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
177
Pearson
Encourages
Innovation
326
326
**
**
.400
.563
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
.268
.430
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Thinking
Pearson
Coaches People
**
**
.273
.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
.116
.189
Sig. (1-tailed)
.018
.000
326
326
Correlation
Rewards
Pearson
Achievement
**
**
.237
.316
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
178
Pearson
Contingent
Rewards
**
.413
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Monitors Mistakes
**
Involvement
**
.411
.449
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Avoids
**
.357
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
Correlation

Pearson
**
**
(0-4)
Laissez Faire Style
(0-4)
Transactional Style
Style (0-4)
Transformational
Correlations
**
.918
.736
-.565
.000
.000
.000
Correlation
Builds
Sig. (1-tailed)
179
Trust
Pearson
Acts
326
**
326
**
326
**
.827
.562
-.570
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
with
Integrity
Pearson
Inspires
Others
Innovation
**
**
.746
-.546
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Encourages
**
.919
**
**
**
.832
.775
-.435
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
**
.925
.806
-.623
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Thinking
Pearson
Coaches
**
**
**
.938
.813
-.626
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
People
180
Pearson
**
**
**
.571
.764
-.234
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Rewards
Pearson
**
**
**
.782
.833
-.486
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Achievement
Pearson
**
**
**
.725
.842
-.338
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Contingent
Rewards
Pearson
Monitors
Mistakes
**
involvement
**
.815
-.317
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Avoids
**
.634
**
**
**
-.630
-.447
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
181
Correlations
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
Score (1-7)
Pearson
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
**
.600
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Transactional
**
.342
**
**
.373
.445
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
Correlation
Laissez faire
Style (0-4)

Correlation analysis among all the sub-scales of Multi-Factor Leadership
Questionnaire and a) Organizational commitment scale and b) Work
Motivation scale, were performed. The results are presented in the tables
above. As might be expected, the correlations provide support for the validity
of the measures of work motivation, organizational commitment, transactional
leadership, transformational leadership, and laissez faire leadership.
182
Transactional leadership, transformational leadership correlate positively and

significantly with work motivation and organizational commitment, and work
motivation
and
organizational
commitment
correlate
negatively
and
significantly with laissez faire leadership.

It is clear from the table that the correlation between the transactional and
transformational scale is high and significant at .01 level. This finding was
consistent with previous studies. According to Bass and Avolio (1995), highly
positive correlations between the transformational scales and transactional
leadership were expected. Bass and Avolio (1995) mentioned three reasons
for this phenomenon. They noted:
First both transactional and transformational leadership represent active,
positive forms of leadership. Second, leaders have been shown in repeated
investigation to be both transactional and transformational. Third, as Shamir
(1995) argues, the consistent honouring of transactional agreements builds
trust, dependability, and perceptions of consistency with leaders by followers,
which are each a basis for transformational leadership. (p.11) Overall, the
results suggested that the data were appropriate for regression techniques.
Table 5.7.1(vii): Regression Analysis Leadership Style on Work
Motivation
Variables Entered / Removeda
Model
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
Acts with
1
Method
Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <=

.
Integrity
.050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
183
Monitors
.
Mistakes

3
Rewards
.

4
Thinking
.
Avoids
.
Involvement
Encourages

.
Innovation
Inspires Others

.

8
Builds Trust
.
a. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)
250.479
Sig. F Change
.436
df2
.53460
df1
.434
F Change
.436
Change Statistics
R Square Change
Adjusted R Square
.660a
Std. Error of the Estimate
R Square
Model
Model Summary
324
.000
184
.498
.495
.50533
.062
39.616
323
.000
.539
.535
.48460
.042
29.230
322
.000
.559
.554
.47487
.020
14.328
321
.000
.764
.584
.577
.46203
.025
19.083
320
.000
.604
.597
.45147
.020
16.144
319
.000
.609
.601
.44915
.005
4.315
318
.039
.621
.611
.44320
.011
9.597
317
.002
.705
.734
.748
.777
.781
.788
a. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity

b. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes
c. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards
d. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Thinking
e. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Thinking, Avoids Involvement
f. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation
g. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others
h. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Thinking, Avoids Involvement, Encourages Innovation, Inspires Others,
Builds Trust
185
ANOVAa
Sum
Model
of
Df
Squares
Mean
Sig.
250.479
.000
159.974
.000
125.714
.000
101.770
.000
89.819
.000
81.082
.000
Square
Regression
71.585
71.585
Residual
92.597
324
.286
Total
164.182
325
Regression
81.702
40.851
Residual
82.481
323
.255
Total
164.182
325
Regression
88.566
29.522
Residual
75.617
322
.235
Total
164.182
325
Regression
91.797
22.949
Residual
72.386
321
.226
Total
164.182
325
Regression
95.871
19.174
Residual
68.312
320
.213
Total
164.182
325
Regression
99.161
16.527
Residual
65.021
319
.204
186
Total
164.182
325
Regression
100.032
14.290
Residual
64.151
318
.202
Total
164.182
325
Regression
101.917
12.740
Residual
62.266
317
.196
Total
164.182
325
70.837
.000
64.858
.000

b. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity
c. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes
d. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards
e. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Thinking
f. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
g. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
h. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
i. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Builds Trust
187
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Std.
Sig.
40.045
.000
15.827
.000
26.356
.000
Beta
Error
(Constant)
3.941
.098
.469
.030
3.384
.128
.409
.030
.575
13.800
.000
.239
.038
.262
6.294
.000
3.634
.131
27.634
.000
.469
.031
.660
15.371
.000
.303
.038
.332
7.908
.000
-.210
.039
-.240
-5.406
.000
28.453
.000
14.607
.000
1
Acts with
.660
Integrity
(Constant)
Acts with
Integrity
2
Monitors
Mistakes
(Constant)
Acts with
3
Integrity
Monitors
Mistakes
Rewards
(Constant)
3.696
.130
Acts with Integrity
.560
.038
.787
188
Monitors Mistakes
.359
.040
.393
8.895
.000
Rewards
-.162
.040
-.185
-4.035
.000
Thinking
-.212
.056
-.238
-3.785
.000
(Constant)
4.243
.178
23.857
.000
Acts with Integrity
.519
.038
.731
13.528
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.352
.039
.386
8.957
.000
Rewards
-.124
.040
-.142
-3.110
.002
Thinking
-.311
.059
-.350
-5.273
.000
Avoids Involvement
-.184
.042
-.212
-4.368
.000
(Constant)
4.227
.174
24.320
.000
Acts with Integrity
.482
.039
.679
12.486
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.213
.052
.234
4.123
.000
Rewards
-.099
.040
-.113
-2.501
.013
Thinking
-.401
.062
-.452
-6.489
.000
Avoids Involvement
-.199
.041
-.228
-4.805
.000
Encourages Innovation
.249
.062
.272
4.018
.000
(Constant)
4.130
.179
23.040
.000
189
Acts with Integrity
.426
.047
.599
9.058
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.182
.054
.199
3.393
.001
Rewards
-.102
.039
-.117
-2.594
.010
Thinking
-.442
.065
-.498
-6.846
.000
Avoids Involvement
-.201
.041
-.230
-4.877
.000
.232
.062
.252
3.715
.000
Inspires Others
.178
.085
.167
2.077
.039
(Constant)
3.863
.197
19.633
.000
Acts with Integrity
.491
.051
.691
9.641
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.204
.053
.223
3.818
.000
Rewards
-.098
.039
-.113
-2.531
.012
Thinking
-.388
.066
-.437
-5.870
.000
Avoids Involvement
-.200
.041
-.230
-4.922
.000
.238
.062
.259
3.868
.000
Inspires Others
.297
.093
.280
3.199
.002
Builds Trust
-.196
.063
-.287
-3.098
.002

190
Excluded Variablesa
Model
Beta In
Sig.
Partial
Correlation
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
.019b
.247
.805
.014
.307
.241b
3.489
.001
.191
.354
.280b
5.833
.000
.309
.684
-.097b
-1.620
.106
-.090
.479
.060b
1.021
.308
.057
.496
Rewards
-.132b
-2.865
.004
-.157
.801
Achievement
-.118b
-2.287
.023
-.126
.648
.093b
1.917
.056
.106
.727
.262b
6.294
.000
.331
.895
-.181b
-3.643
.000
-.199
.676
-.318c
-3.832
.000
-.209
.217
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
1
Contingent
Rewards
Monitors
Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
191
Inspires
-.009c
-.114
.909
-.006
.230
.130c
1.856
.064
.103
.315
-.319c
-5.215
.000
-.279
.385
-.172c
-2.640
.009
-.146
.359
Rewards
-.240c
-5.406
.000
-.288
.725
Achievement
-.229c
-4.595
.000
-.248
.591
-.093c
-1.693
.091
-.094
.511
-.134c
-2.778
.006
-.153
.656
-.318c
-3.832
.000
-.209
.217
-.009c
-.114
.909
-.006
.230
.130c
1.856
.064
.103
.315
Thinking
-.319c
-5.215
.000
-.279
.385
Coaches
-.172c
-2.640
.009
-.146
.359
Others
Encourages
Innovation
2
Thinking
Coaches
People
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
192
People
Rewards
-.240c
-5.406
.000
-.288
.725
Achievement
-.229c
-4.595
.000
-.248
.591
-.093c
-1.693
.091
-.094
.511
-.134c
-2.778
.006
-.153
.656
-.248d
-3.041
.003
-.167
.210
.056d
.698
.486
.039
.225
.122d
1.811
.071
.101
.315
-.238d
-3.785
.000
-.207
.347
-.085d
-1.304
.193
-.073
.333
-.117d
-1.981
.048
-.110
.408
.097d
1.524
.129
.085
.351
-.113d
-2.433
.016
-.135
.651
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
193
Builds Trust
Inspires
-.141e
-1.576
.116
-.088
.170
.196e
2.335
.020
.129
.193
.243e
3.493
.001
.192
.274
.125e
1.482
.139
.083
.193
.084e
1.009
.314
.056
.198
.132e
2.108
.036
.117
.344
-.212e
-4.368
.000
-.237
.555
-.132f
-1.518
.130
-.085
.170
.209f
2.561
.011
.142
.193
.272f
4.018
.000
.219
.272
.056f
.669
.504
.037
.185
.082f
1.018
.309
.057
.198
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Coaches
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
6
Coaches
People
Achievement
194
Contingent
.147f
2.406
.017
.133
.343
-.164g
-1.920
.056
-.107
.169
.167g
2.077
.039
.116
.189
-.031g
-.369
.712
-.021
.173
.072g
.911
.363
.051
.198
.097g
1.574
.117
.088
.326
-.287h
-3.098
.002
-.171
.140
-.002h
-.025
.980
-.001
.168
.075h
.952
.342
.053
.198
.116h
1.880
.061
.105
.320
.021i
.242
.809
.014
.167
Achievement
.068i
.868
.386
.049
.198
Contingent
.110i
1.804
.072
.101
.319
Rewards
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Coaches
7
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Builds Trust
Coaches
People
7
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Coaches
People
195
Rewards

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes
d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes, Rewards
e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking
f. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement
g. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes,
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Innovation
h. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes,
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Innovation, Inspires Others

i.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes,
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Innovation, Inspires Others, Builds Trust

One way ANOVA test was carried out to test the differences in the level of
Organisational Commitment and Work Motivation among groups on the basis
of the employees demographic details such as age, education, marital status,
occupational status, monthly income, length of service, gender and internal
promotion
196
Table 5.7.2(i): ANOVA By Length of service

Descriptives (in Years)
Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)
Employee Commitment Total Score (1-7)
Mean
Std.
Std.
95% Confidence
Dev.
Error
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
<5
66
5.0273
.47573
.05856
4.9103
5.1442
3.93
5.60
5-10
34
5.2196
.76656
.13146
4.9521
5.4871
4.07
6.07
11-15
95
5.9249
.53803
.05520
5.8153
6.0345
4.93
6.67
16-20
82
5.7252
.47539
.05250
5.6207
5.8297
4.60
6.53
> 20
49
5.8000
.52705
.07529
5.6486
5.9514
4.13
6.47
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
32
Total
6
<5
66
5.5091
.63190
.07778
5.3537
5.6644
4.40
6.20
5-10
34
4.8735
.66756
.11449
4.6406
5.1065
4.10
6.20
11-15
95
5.6347
.76001
.07798
5.4799
5.7896
3.20
6.70
16-20
82
5.4061
.47150
.05207
5.3025
5.5097
4.70
7.00
> 20
49
5.3327
.86347
.12335
5.0846
5.5807
4.10
6.20
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
32
Total
3.20
7.00
197
ANOVA
Sum of
Df
Mean
Squares
Employee
Between
Commitment
Groups
Sig.
34.398
.000
8.325
.000
Square
39.843
9.961
92.952
321
.290
132.795
325
15.432
3.858
148.751
321
.463
164.182
325
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Work
Between
Motivation
Groups
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Sig.
Std. Error
Difference (I-J)
Mean
Service
(J) Length of
Service (Years)
(I) Length of
Variable
Dependent
Games-Howell
198
5-10
-.19234
.14392
.670
-.6007
.2161
11-15
-.89764
.08048
.000
-1.1199
-.6754
16-20
-.69793
.07865
.000
-.9153
-.4806
> 20
-.77273
.09538
.000
-1.0379
-.5076
<5
.19234
.14392
.670
-.2161
.6007
11-15
-.70530
.14258
.000
-1.1104
-.3002
16-20
-.50560
.14156
.007
-.9082
-.1030
> 20
-.58039
.15150
.003
-1.0079
-.1529
<5
.89764
.08048
.000
.6754
1.1199
5-10
.70530
.14258
.000
.3002
1.1104
<5
Employee
5-10
Commitment
Total Score
(1-7)
11-15
16-20
16-20
.19971
.07618
.071
-.0103
.4097
> 20
.12491
.09336
.668
-.1345
.3843
<5
.69793
.07865
.000
.4806
.9153
5-10
.50560
.14156
.007
.1030
.9082
11-15
-.19971
.07618
.071
-.4097
.0103
> 20
-.07480
.09179
.925
-.3302
.1806
.09538
.000
.5076
1.0379
.58039
.15150
.003
.1529
1.0079
-.12491
.09336
.668
-.3843
.1345
<5
.77273
5-10
11-15
199
> 20
16-20
.07480
.09179
.925
-.1806
.3302
5-10
.63556
.13841
.000
.2470
1.0242
11-15
-.12565
.11014
.785
-.4297
.1784
16-20
.10299
.09360
.806
-.1563
.3623
> 20
.17644
.14583
.746
-.2301
.5830
<5
-.63556
.13841
.000
-1.0242
-.2470
11-15
-.76121
.13852
.000
-1.1497
-.3727
16-20
-.53257
.12577
.001
-.8892
-.1759
> 20
-.45912
.16829
.059
-.9288
.0106
<5
.12565
.11014
.785
-.1784
.4297
5-10
.76121
.13852
.000
.3727
1.1497
16-20
.22864
.09376
.111
-.0301
.4873
> 20
.30208
.14593
.242
-.1045
.7086
<5
-.10299
.09360
.806
-.3623
.1563
5-10
.53257
.12577
.001
.1759
.8892
11-15
-.22864
.09376
.111
-.4873
.0301
> 20
.07344
.13389
.982
-.3022
.4491
<5
-.17644
.14583
.746
-.5830
.2301
5-10
.45912
.16829
.059
-.0106
.9288
< 5 Years
5-10
Work
11-15
Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
16-20
200
> 20
11-15
-.30208
.14593
.242
-.7086
.1045
16-20
-.07344
.13389
.982
-.4491
.3022
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 5.7.2(ii): ANOVA By Age
Max
Mean
Bound
Min
Interval for
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Std. Error
Deviation
4.9847
.50187
.05834
4.8684
5.1010
3.93
5.60
30-39
82
6.0211
.57577
.06358
5.8946
6.1476
4.27
6.67
40-49
130
5.6605
.51362
.04505
5.5714
5.7496
4.60
6.53
>= 50
40
5.6833
.51169
.08090
5.5197
5.8470
4.13
6.40
Total
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
20-29
74
5.4000
.68186
.07926
5.2420
5.5580
4.20
6.20
30-39
82
5.3549
.79910
.08825
5.1793
5.5305
3.20
6.70
40-49
130
5.5731
.58200
.05104
5.4721
5.6741
4.70
7.00
Std.
74
N
20-29
Total Score (1-7)

Work Motivation
Mean
Descriptives
201
>= 50
40
5.1500
.85485
.13516
4.8766
5.4234
4.10
6.10
Total
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
ANOVA
Sum
of
Df
Mean
Squares
Sig.
Square
Between Groups
43.314
14.438
Within Groups
89.481
322
.278
Total
132.795
325
6.324
2.108
Within Groups
157.859
322
.490
Total
164.182
325
51.956
.000
4.300
.005
Employee
Commitment
Total Score
(1-7)
Between Groups
Work
Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
Post Hoc Tests

Games-Howell
Depende
(I) Age
(J) Age
Mean
Std.
nt
Group
Group
Diff. (I-J)
Error
Sig.
95%
Confidence
Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
7)
-1.2606
(1-
.000
re
Sco
.08629
al
Tot
nt
30-39
tme
mmi
Co
ee
ploy
Em
Variable
-.8123
202
1.03645
20-29
.07371
.000
-.8673
-.4844
.09975
.000
-.9605
-.4368
40-49
-.67583
>= 50
-.69865
20-29
1.03645
.08629
.000
.8123
1.2606
40-49
.36063
.07792
.000
.1583
.5630
>= 50
.33780
.10290
.008
.0682
.6074
30-39
.07371
.000
.4844
.8673
-.36063
.07792
.000
-.5630
-.1583
-.02282
.09260
.995
-.2670
.2213
20-29
.69865*
.09975
.000
.4368
.9605
30-39
-.33780
.10290
.008
-.6074
-.0682
40-49
.02282
.09260
.995
-.2213
.2670
30-39
.04512
.11862
.981
-.2630
.3532
40-49
-.17308
.09428
.261
-.4184
.0722
>= 50
.25000
.15669
.388
-.1630
.6630
20-29
-.04512
.11862
.981
-.3532
.2630
40-49
-.21820
.10195
.146
-.4834
.0470
>= 50
.20488
.16142
.585
-.2195
.6293
20-29
.17308
.09428
.261
-.0722
.4184
20-29
.67583
30-393
>= 50
40-49
>= 50
20-29
30-39
203
40-49
>= 50
30-39
.21820
.10195
.146
-.0470
.4834
>= 50
.42308
.14448
.025
.0393
.8069
20-29
-.25000
.15669
.388
-.6630
.1630
30-39
-.20488
.16142
.585
-.6293
.2195
40-49
-.42308
.14448
.025
-.8069
-.0393

Table 5.7.2(iii) : ANOVA by Educational Qualification
Descriptives
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev.
Error
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
BSc /
BE /
82
5.4862
.61321
.06772
5.3514
5.6209
4.07
6.47
78
5.7812
.47639
.05394
5.6738
5.8886
4.93
6.40
BCom /
BA
MA /
MCom /
MSc /
ME /
MCA
204
Master
Degree
166
5.5723
.70114
.05442
5.4648
5.6797
3.93
6.67
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
82
5.6293
.52786
.05829
5.5133
5.7453
4.20
6.20
78
5.5487
.52860
.05985
5.4295
5.6679
4.70
6.30
166
5.2699
.82201
.06380
5.1439
5.3958
3.20
7.00
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
/ MBA /
MMS
Total
BSc / BE
/ BCom /
BA
MA /
MCom /
MSc /
ME /
MCA
Master
Degree
/ MBA /
MMS
Total
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Total Score (1-7)
Employee Commitment
Squares
Mean
Sig.
4.694
.010
Square
Between Groups
3.751
1.875
Within Groups
129.045
323
.400
Total
132.795
325
205
Score (1-7)
Between Groups
8.608
4.304
Within Groups
155.574
323
.482
Total
164.182
325
8.936
.000
Post Hoc Tests

BSc / BE / BCom /
-.29502
.08657
.002
-.4999
-.0901
-.08611
.08687
.583
-.2914
.1192
.29502
.08657
.002
.0901
.4999
.20891
.07662
.019
.0281
.3898
.08687
.583
-.1192
.2914
.07662
.019
-.3898
-.0281
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Sig.
Std. Error
(I-J)
Mean Difference
Employee
(J) Education of
Employee
MA / MCom / MSc / ME
/ ME / MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
BA
/ MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
BSc / BE / BCom /
.08611
BA
MA / MCom / MSc
MMS
Variable
(I) Education of
BSc / BE / BCom / BA
MA / MCom / MSc
Master Degree / MBA /
Dependent
Games-Howell
-.20891
/ ME / MCA
206
BSc / BE / BCom /
.08055
.08355
.601
-.1171
.2782
.08642
.000
.1555
.5633
-.08055
.08355
.601
-.2782
.1171
.08748
.005
.0724
.4853
/ ME / MCA
Master Degree /
.35939
MBA / MMS
BA
/ MCA
Master Degree /
.27884
MBA / MMS
BSc / BE / BCom /
-.35939
.08642
.000
-.5633
-.1555
-.27884
.08748
.005
-.4853
-.0724
BA
MA / MCom / MSc
MMS
MA / MCom / MSc
/ ME / MCA

Table 5.7.2(iv) : ANOVA by Occupational status
Oneway ANOVA
Descriptives
Employee Commitment Total Score

(1-7)
Mean
Std.
Std.
Dev.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
Operational
75
5.2276
.64915
.07496
5.0782
5.3769
4.13
6.47
154
5.5939
.65534
.05281
5.4896
5.6983
3.93
6.67
69
5.8860
.49614
.05973
5.7668
6.0052
4.60
6.40
Executive
Middle
manager
Senior
207
Manager
Senior
28
5.9333
.00000
.00000
5.9333
5.9333
5.93
5.93
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
75
5.5560
.68027
.07855
5.3995
5.7125
4.10
6.30
154
5.2792
.84022
.06771
5.1455
5.4130
3.20
7.00
69
5.6681
.43471
.05233
5.5637
5.7725
5.10
6.30
28
5.3000
.00000
.00000
5.3000
5.3000
5.30
5.30
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
Executive
Total
Operational
Executive
Middle
manager
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
Work Motivation
Total Score (1-7)
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
19.164
6.388
18.102
.000
Within Groups
113.632
322
.353
Total
132.795
325
Between Groups
9.074
3.025
6.279
.000
Within Groups
155.108
322
.482
Total
164.182
325
208
Post Hoc Tests

Middle Manager
Senior Manager
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
-.36638
.09169
.001
-.6046
-.1281
Senior Manager
-.65843
.09584
.000
-.9077
-.4092
Senior Executive
-.70578
.07496
.000
-.9028
-.5088
.09169
.001
.1281
.6046
.36638
Executive
Senior Manager
-.29205
.07973
.002
-.4989
-.0852
Senior Executive
-.33939
.05281
.000
-.4766
-.2022
Operational
.65843
.09584
.000
.4092
.9077
Middle manager
.29205
.07973
.002
.0852
.4989
Senior Executive
-.04734
.05973
.858
-.2047
.1100
.70578
.07496
.000
.5088
.9028
Middle manager
.33939
.05281
.000
.2022
.4766
Senior Manager
.04734
.05973
.858
-.1100
.2047
Executive
Operational
Senior Executive
Sig.
Middle Manager
Operational
Std. Error
Mean Difference (I-J)
(J) Occupation
Executive
(I) Occupation
Operational
Dependent Variable
Games-Howell
Executive
209
Confidence
Lower
Bound
.10370
.041
.0078
.5457
Senior Manager
-.11212
.09439
.636
-.3578
.1336
Senior Executive
.25600
.07855
.009
.0495
.4625
Middle Manager
Bound
Upper
Std. Error
-.27678
.10370
.041
-.5457
-.0078
Senior Manager
-.38890
.08557
.000
-.6105
-.1673
Senior Executive
-.02078
.06771
.990
-.1966
.1551
.11212
.09439
.636
-.1336
.3578
Executive
Operational
Senior Manager
Operational
Interval
95%
Sig.

.27678
(J) Occupation
Executive
(I) Occupation
Operational
Dependent Variable
Middle Manager
Executive
Middle manager
.38890
.08557
.000
.1673
.6105
Senior Executive
.36812
.05233
.000
.2303
.5059
.07855
.009
-.4625
-.0495
.06771
.990
-.1551
.1966
.05233
.000
-.5059
-.2303
Senior Executive
Operational
-.25600
Executive
Middle manager
.02078
Senior Manager
-.36812
210
Table 5.7.2(v): ANOVA by Monthly Compensation

Descriptives
INR Per Month
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev
Error
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
2,00,000
17
4.7059
.48020
.11646
4.4590
4.9528
4.13
5.33
121
5.4529
.68356
.06214
5.3299
5.5759
3.93
6.47
128
5.7281
.52810
.04668
5.6358
5.8205
4.60
6.40
60
5.8800
.49750
.06423
5.7515
6.0085
4.93
6.67
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
17
5.1059
.32494
.07881
4.9388
5.2730
4.60
5.50
121
5.4273
.79015
.07183
5.2851
5.5695
3.20
6.30
128
5.4086
.66830
.05907
5.2917
5.5255
4.10
6.30
60
5.5567
.68948
.08901
5.3786
5.7348
4.70
7.00
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
& Above
1,00,0001,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
2,00,000
Work Motivational Total Score (1-7)
& Above
1,00,0001,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
211
ANOVA
Sum of
Df
Employee Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Between

Score (1-7)
Squares
Between
Mean
Sig.
22.501
.000
1.866
.135
Square
23.014
7.671
Within Groups
109.781
322
.341
Total
132.795
325
2.805
.935
Within Groups
161.377
322
.501
Total
164.182
325
Groups
Groups
Post Hoc Tests

Games-Howell
(I)
(J)
Mean
Std.
Variable
Monthly
Monthly
Diff (I-J)
Error
Salary
Salary
1,00,000-.74701
Sig
95% Confidence
Interval
.13201
.000
-1.1090
-.3850
1,99,000
Score (1-7)
Dependent
51,0002,00,000
& Above
-1.02224
.12547
.000
-1.3713
-.6732
-1.17412
.13300
.000
-1.5385
-.8098
99,000
35,00050,000
212
2,00,000
.13201
.000
.3850
1.1090
-.27523
.07772
.003
-.4764
-.0741
-.42711
.08937
.000
-.6592
-.1950
.12547
.000
.6732
1.3713
.07772
.003
.0741
.4764
-.15188
.07940
.228
-.3587
.0549
.13300
.000
.8098
1.5385
.08937
.000
.1950
.6592
.15188
.07940
.228
-.0549
.3587
.74701
& Above
1,00,000 1,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
2,00,000
1.02224
& Above
51,00,000-
51,000-
99,00,000
99,000
.27523
35,00050,000
2,00,000
1.17412
& Above
35,000
51,000.42711
50,000
99,000
35,000-
1,00,000-.32139
.10663
.021
-.6050
-.0378
-.30271
.09849
.020
-.5675
-.0380
-.45078
.11889
.002
-.7653
-.1362
1,99,000
(1-7)
50,000
2,00,000 &
Above
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
213
2,00,000
.10663
.021
.0378
.6050
.01868
.09300
.997
-.2220
.2593
-.12939
.11438
.671
-.4270
.1682
.09849
.020
.0380
.5675
-.01868
.09300
.997
-.2593
.2220
-.14807
.10683
.511
-.4267
.1305
.11889
.002
.1362
.7653
.12939
.11438
.671
-.1682
.4270
.14807
.10683
.511
-.1305
.4267
.32139
& Above
1,00,000-
51,000-
1,99,000
99,000
35,00050,000
2,00,000
.30271
& Above
51,000-
1,00,000-
99,000
1,99,000
35,00050,000
1,00,000.45078
1,99,000
35,000-
51,000-
50,000
99,000
51,00099,000
214
Table 5.7.2(vi): ANOVA by Length of Service

Descriptives
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev.
Error
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
< 5 Years
66
5.0273
.47573
.05856
4.9103
5.1442
3.93
5.60
5-10
34
5.2196
.76656
.13146
4.9521
5.4871
4.07
6.07
11-15
95
5.9249
.53803
.05520
5.8153
6.0345
4.93
6.67
16-20
82
5.7252
.47539
.05250
5.6207
5.8297
4.60
6.53
> 20
49
5.8000
.52705
.07529
5.6486
5.9514
4.13
6.47
Total
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
< 5 Years
66
5.5091
.63190
.07778
5.3537
5.6644
4.40
6.20
5-10
34
4.8735
.66756
.11449
4.6406
5.1065
4.10
6.20
11-15
95
5.6347
.76001
.07798
5.4799
5.7896
3.20
6.70
16-20
82
5.4061
.47150
.05207
5.3025
5.5097
4.70
7.00
> 20
49
5.3327
.86347
.12335
5.0846
5.5807
4.10
6.20
Total
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
215
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Mean
Squares
Employee
Between
Commitment
Groups
Sig.
Square
39.843
9.961
92.952
321
.290
132.795
325
15.432
3.858
148.751
321
.463
164.182
325
34.398
.000
8.325
.000
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Work
Between
Motivation
Groups
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests
Games-Howell
Depend
(I) Length
(J) Length
Mean Diff.
Std.
ent
of Service
of Service
(I-J)
Error
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
.670
7)
re
.14392
(1-
Sco
al
-.19234
Tot
5-10
nt
tme
mmi
Co
ee
ploy
Em
Variable
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-.6007
.2161
216
< 5 Years
11-15
-.89764
.08048
.000
-1.1199
-.6754
16-20
-.69793
.07865
.000
-.9153
-.4806
> 20
-.77273
.09538
.000
-1.0379
-.5076
<5
.19234
.14392
.670
-.2161
.6007
11-15
-.70530
.14258
.000
-1.1104
-.3002
16-20
-.50560
.14156
.007
-.9082
-.1030
> 20
-.58039
.15150
.003
-1.0079
-.1529
<5
.89764
.08048
.000
.6754
1.1199
5-10
.70530
.14258
.000
.3002
1.1104
16-20
.19971
.07618
.071
-.0103
.4097
> 20
.12491
.09336
.668
-.1345
.3843
<5
.69793
.07865
.000
.4806
.9153
5-10
.50560
.14156
.007
.1030
.9082
11-15
-.19971
.07618
.071
-.4097
.0103
> 20
-.07480
.09179
.925
-.3302
.1806
<5
.77273
.09538
.000
.5076
1.0379
5-10
.58039
.15150
.003
.1529
1.0079
11-15
-.12491
.09336
.668
-.3843
.1345
16-20
.07480
.09179
.925
-.1806
.3302
5-10
.63556
.13841
.000
.2470
1.0242
11-15
-.12565
.11014
.785
-.4297
.1784
5-10
11-15
16-20
7)
Score (1-
Total
Motivation
Work
> 20
<5
217
16-20
.10299
.09360
.806
-.1563
.3623
> 20
.17644
.14583
.746
-.2301
.5830
<5
-.63556
.13841
.000
-1.0242
-.2470
11-15
-.76121
.13852
.000
-1.1497
-.3727
16-20
-.53257
.12577
.001
-.8892
-.1759
> 20
-.45912
.16829
.059
-.9288
.0106
<5
.12565
.11014
.785
-.1784
.4297
5-10
.76121
.13852
.000
.3727
1.1497
16-20
.22864
.09376
.111
-.0301
.4873
> 20
.30208
.14593
.242
-.1045
.7086
<5
-.10299
.09360
.806
-.3623
.1563
5-10
.53257
.12577
.001
.1759
.8892
11-15
-.22864
.09376
.111
-.4873
.0301
> 20
.07344
.13389
.982
-.3022
.4491
<5
-.17644
.14583
.746
-.5830
.2301
5-10
.45912
.16829
.059
-.0106
.9288
11-15
-.30208
.14593
.242
-.7086
.1045
16-20
-.07344
.13389
.982
-.4491
.3022
5-10
11-15
16-20
>20
218
Table 5.7.2(vii) : ANOVA by Internal Promotion

Descriptives
N
Mean
Std.
Std.
95% Confidence
Dev.
Error
Interval for Mean

Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
5.6851
.82218
.09431
5.4972
5.8730
3.93
6.53
3-6
160
5.7358
.56082
.04434
5.6483
5.8234
4.13
6.67
>7
38
5.6825
.28849
.04680
5.5876
5.7773
5.33
5.93
52
5.0013
.35998
.04992
4.9011
5.1015
4.13
5.47
Total
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
0-2
76
5.3697
.68800
.07892
5.2125
5.5270
4.20
6.30
3-6
160
5.5594
.75087
.05936
5.4421
5.6766
3.20
7.00
>7
38
4.9368
.53647
.08703
4.7605
5.1132
4.10
5.60
52
5.4615
.56261
.07802
5.3049
5.6182
4.60
6.10
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
76
Not Promoted /
0-2
Not Promoted /
Years
Total
219
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Squares
Mean
Sig.
21.779
.000
8.650
.000
Square
Employee Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Between
22.401
7.467
110.395
322
.343
132.795
325
12.245
4.082
151.938
322
.472
164.182
325
Groups
Within
Groups
Total

Score (1-7)
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests

Games-Howell
Mean
Std.
ent
Promote
Span
Diff
Error
Variable
d Span
Sig.
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-.05075
.10421
.962
-.3226
.2211
.00263
.10528
1.000
-.2723
.2775
7)
3-6
95% Confidence
Interval
(I-J)
Score (1-
ent Total
(J) Promoted
Commitm
(I)
Employee
Depend
>7
220
0-2 years
Not Promoted/
.10671
.000
.4054
.9622
0-2
.05075
.10421
.962
-.2211
.3226
>7
.05338
.06447
.841
-.1147
.2215
.06677
.000
.5609
.9082
0-2 years
-.00263
.10528
1.000
-.2775
.2723
3-6
-.05338
.06447
.841
-.2215
.1147
.06843
.000
.5019
.8604
.68381
Not Applicable
3-6 years
Not Promoted/
.73455
Not Applicable
> 7 years
Not Promoted/
.68117
Not Applicable
0-2 years
-.68381
.10671
.000
-.9622
-.4054
3-6
-.73455
.06677
.000
-.9082
-.5609
>7
-.68117
.06843
.000
-.8604
-.5019
3-6
-.18964
.09875
.224
-.4460
.0667
>7
.43289
.11748
.002
.1255
.7403
-.09180
.11097
.841
-.3809
.1973
0-2 years
.18964
.09875
.224
-.0667
.4460
>7
.62253
.10534
.000
.3458
.8993
.09784
.09804
.751
-.1577
.3534
.11748
.002
-.7403
-.1255
Not
Promoted
/ NA
0-2 years
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
3-6
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
0-2 years
-.43289
221
>7
3-6
-.62253
.10534
.000
-.8993
-.3458
-.52470
.11688
.000
-.8312
-.2182
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
0-2 years
.09180
.11097
.841
-.1973
.3809
3-6
-.09784
.09804
.751
-.3534
.1577
>7
.52470
.11688
.000
.2182
.8312
Not
Promoted
/ NA

Mean Standard Deviation of all Variables
The Table below shows the range, mean and standard deviation of all the scales
used in this study. As shown in the table, the range indicates the lowest and
highest score for each variable. The mean represents the most common average
or measure of central tendency calculated by dividing the sum of the scores in a
set by the number of scores. Standard deviation (SD) as defined by Gall et al.
(1996) is a measure of the extent to which the scores in a distribution deviate
from their mean.
Table 5.7.3(i) : Mean Standard Deviation of all Variables
All in range of 0 to 4
Min
Max
Mean
Std. Dev.
Builds Trust
326
.00
4.00
3.0245
1.03746
Acts with Integrity
326
.00
4.00
3.1656
1.00008
Inspires Others
326
1.25
4.00
3.2163
.67026
326
1.50
4.00
3.1779
.77396
222
Thinking
326
.00
4.50
3.1702
.80058
Coaches People
326
.80
4.00
3.1620
.74074
Rewards
326
.00
4.00
3.0399
.81237
Achievement
326
.00
4.00
3.2577
.68118
Contingent Rewards
326
.00
4.00
3.3160
.91224
Monitors Mistakes
326
.33
4.00
3.1278
.77945
Avoids Involvement
326
.00
3.67
1.0726
.81703
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
326
3.93
6.67
5.6006
.63922
326
3.20
7.00
5.4270
.71076
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
326
1.13
4.00
3.1708
.69899
326
1.00
4.00
3.1890
.62471
326
.00
3.67
1.0726
.81703

Score (1-7)
The Tables below show frequency distributions of 5 scales and also Mean,
Median, SD. The ranges of scores in each scale are given in parentheses.
223
Table 5.7.3 (ii) : Frequency Distribution of Employee Commitment Scale

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
3.93
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.07
1.2
1.2
2.5
4.13
1.5
1.5
4.0
4.27
1.2
1.2
5.2
4.40
1.2
1.2
6.4
4.60
2.5
2.5
8.9
4.80
1.2
1.2
10.1
4.93
26
8.0
8.0
18.1
5.00
1.2
1.2
19.3
5.07
15
4.6
4.6
23.9
5.13
10
3.1
3.1
27.0
5.20
1.2
1.2
28.2
5.27
1.5
1.5
29.8
5.33
30
9.2
9.2
39.0
5.40
2.8
2.8
41.7
5.47
1.2
1.2
42.9
Valid
224
5.60
10
3.1
3.1
46.0
5.67
2.8
2.8
48.8
5.80
2.5
2.5
51.2
5.87
10
3.1
3.1
54.3
5.93
61
18.7
18.7
73.0
6.00
1.2
1.2
74.2
6.07
19
5.8
5.8
80.1
6.20
1.5
1.5
81.6
6.27
1.2
1.2
82.8
6.33
1.5
1.5
84.4
6.40
39
12.0
12.0
96.3
6.47
1.2
1.2
97.5
6.53
1.2
1.2
98.8
6.67
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Table 5.7.3 (iii): Frequency Distribution of Work Motivation Scale

Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
225
Percent
Valid
Valid
Percent
3.20
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.10
2.8
2.8
4.0
4.20
1.2
1.2
5.2
4.40
19
5.8
5.8
11.0
4.60
2.5
2.5
13.5
4.70
34
10.4
10.4
23.9
4.80
1.2
1.2
25.2
5.10
14
4.3
4.3
29.4
5.20
19
5.8
5.8
35.3
5.30
57
17.5
17.5
52.8
5.40
1.2
1.2
54.0
5.50
12
3.7
3.7
57.7
5.60
1.5
1.5
59.2
5.70
1.5
1.5
60.7
5.80
1.2
1.2
62.0
5.90
24
7.4
7.4
69.3
6.00
2.8
2.8
72.1
6.10
36
11.0
11.0
83.1
6.20
24
7.4
7.4
90.5
6.30
23
7.1
7.1
97.5
226
6.70
1.2
1.2
98.8
7.00
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Table 5.7.3(iv): Frequency Distribution of Transformational Leadership

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.13
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.93
23
7.1
7.1
8.3
2.00
24
7.4
7.4
15.6
2.27
1.8
1.8
17.5
2.33
1.2
1.2
18.7
2.40
1.2
1.2
19.9
2.53
1.5
1.5
21.5
2.60
1.2
1.2
22.7
2.67
1.5
1.5
24.2
2.80
10
3.1
3.1
27.3
2.87
15
4.6
4.6
31.9
3.07
1.2
1.2
33.1
3.13
14
4.3
4.3
37.4
227
Valid
3.20
2.5
2.5
39.9
3.27
1.2
1.2
41.1
3.33
24
7.4
7.4
48.5
3.40
51
15.6
15.6
64.1
3.53
1.2
1.2
65.3
3.67
19
5.8
5.8
71.2
3.73
14
4.3
4.3
75.5
3.80
15
4.6
4.6
80.1
3.87
17
5.2
5.2
85.3
3.93
34
10.4
10.4
95.7
4.00
14
4.3
4.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Table 5.7.3(v): Frequency Distribution of Transactional Leadership Scale

Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.00
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.25
1.2
1.2
2.5
1.38
1.2
1.2
3.7
1.75
1.2
1.2
4.9
228
Valid
Valid
1.88
.3
.3
5.2
2.38
10
3.1
3.1
8.3
2.50
2.8
2.8
11.0
2.63
39
12.0
12.0
23.0
2.75
10
3.1
3.1
26.1
2.88
19
5.8
5.8
31.9
3.00
17
5.2
5.2
37.1
3.13
13
4.0
4.0
41.1
3.25
10
3.1
3.1
44.2
3.38
14
4.3
4.3
48.5
3.50
71
21.8
21.8
70.2
3.63
32
9.8
9.8
80.1
3.75
32
9.8
9.8
89.9
3.88
19
5.8
5.8
95.7
4.00
14
4.3
4.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
229
Table 5.7.3 (vi): Frequency Distribution of Laissez faire Leadership Scale

Frequency
Valid
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
.00
40
12.3
12.3
12.3
.17
1.2
1.2
13.5
.33
14
4.3
4.3
17.8
.50
15
4.6
4.6
22.4
.67
60
18.4
18.4
40.8
.83
25
7.7
7.7
48.5
1.00
61
18.7
18.7
67.2
1.17
2.8
2.8
69.9
1.33
23
7.1
7.1
77.0
1.50
10
3.1
3.1
80.1
1.83
20
6.1
6.1
86.2
2.00
1.2
1.2
87.4
2.33
1.2
1.2
88.7
2.50
10
3.1
3.1
91.7
2.83
23
7.1
7.1
98.8
3.67
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
230
(0-4)
Laissez Faire Style
(0-4)
Transactional Style
(0-4)
(1-7)
(1-7)
Statistics
326
326
326
326
326
Mean
5.6006
5.4270
3.1708
3.1890
1.0726
Median
5.8000
5.3000
3.4000
3.5000
1.0000
Std. Deviation
.63922
.71076
.69899
.62471
.81703
Minimum
3.93
3.20
1.13
1.00
.00
Maximum
6.67
7.00
4.00
4.00
3.67
25
5.1333
4.8000
2.8000
2.7500
.6667
50
5.8000
5.3000
3.4000
3.5000
1.0000
75
6.0667
6.1000
3.7333
3.6250
1.3333
Percentiles
The higher the percentage score, the more transformational are the function
heads / supervisors and the lower the score, the less transformational are the
function heads / supervisors.
231
According to their percentage scores, the function heads/supervisors were

characterized as follows:
Between 0 and 20 they were not transformational, between 21 and 40 they
were
rarely transformational, between 41
and 60
they were
little
transformational, between 61 and 80 they were fairly transformational and

between 81 and 100 the leaders were highly transformational.
The laissez faire leadership scale consisted of four items with each item
having a score between one and five. Therefore, the range for this style was
between 4 and 20. The higher the score, the more laissez-faire function
heads/supervisors, and the lower the score the less laissez-faire the function
heads/supervisors.
The scale that measured commitment was made up of 15 statements. Each
statement had a score of between 1 and 7. Therefore, the range was between
15 and 105.The employees who had a score less than 33 were considered to
be less committed to the organisation. Those who had a score between 34-66
are moderately committed to the organisation, and the employees who had a
score above 66 were considered to be highly committed to the organisation.
The scale that measured motivation was made up of 10 statements. Each
statement had a score of between 1 and 7. Therefore, the range was between
10 and 70.The employees who had a score less than 25 were considered to
be less motivated about their work. Those who had a score between 26-45
are moderately motivated about their work, and the employees who had a
score above 46 were considered to be highly motivated about their work.
232
Correlations
Employee
Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Builds Trust
Acts with Integrity
Inspires Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches People
Rewards
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Monitors Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
**
Work
Motivation Total
Score (1-7)
**
Pearson Correlation
.313
.555
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.301
.660
.000
.000
N
Pearson Correlation
326
326
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
**
.335
.616
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.400
.563
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.268
.430
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.273
.499
.000
.000
326
326
*
**
.116
.189
.018
.000
326
326
**
**
.237
.316
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.357
.413
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.411
.449
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
-.177
-.499
.001
.000
326
326
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
233
Correlations
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Builds Trust
Acts with
Integrity
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Thinking
Coaches
People
Rewards
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
Transactional
Style (0-4)
**
Laissez
Faire Style
(0-4)
**
.918
.736
-.565
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.827
.562
-.570
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.919
.746
-.546
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.832
.775
-.435
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.925
.806
-.623
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.938
.813
-.626
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.571
.764
-.234
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.782
.833
-.486
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.725
.842
-.338
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
234
Monitors
Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
**
**
.634
.815
-.317
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
-.630
-.447
1.000
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326

Correlations
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Transactional
Style (0-4)
Laissez Fairre
Style (0-4)
Work Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
Pearson
Correlation
.342
.600
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
Pearson
Correlation
.373
.445
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Pearson
Correlation
**
**
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326

has a positive impact on the level of Organizational commitment of
employees.
As shown in the tables above, the Pearsons correlation indicated that there
organizational commitment of employees at a significant level (level of
235
confidence at .05). These results were consistent with the hypotheses

therefore the hypotheses was accepted.
a positive impact on the level of Organizational commitment of
employees.
As shown in tables above, concerning the relationship between transactional
leadership style and organizational commitment level of employees. The
Pearson correlation result demonstrated that the relationship between the two
variables is positive and significant also (level of confidence at.05).The results
were consistent with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was supported.
negative impact on the level of Organizational commitment of
employees.
To test these hypotheses correlations were conducted. The results of the
correlation analyses revealed that Laissez Faire Leadership style has a
negative impact on the level of Organizational commitment of employees but
statistically it is not significant.
As the Table indicates, co-relation between Transformational Leadership
styles and employee commitment is positive and the score is 0.485. Corelation between transactional style and employee commitment is also
positive with score of 0.395. However, the degree of co-relation is less, which
means that transformational style of leadership motivates employees more
than transactional style. Laissez-faire style, on the other hand, has a negative
236
co-relation with motivation. This means that employees are not satisfied under
laissez-faire leadership. All the co-relations are highly significant and reliability
scores are strong for all scales. The results and implications of this study
provided recommendations to increase the supervisor's leadership skills in
order to improve employee's commitment.
has a positive impact on the level of motivation of employees.
As the table indicates, there was a positive relationship between the
transformational leadership style and employee motivation at a significant
level (level of confidence at .05). These results were consistent with the
hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was accepted.
a positive impact on the level of motivation of employees.
As shown in table 8(ii-a), concerning the relationship between transactional
leadership style and motivation level of employees. The Pearson correlation
result demonstrated that the relationship between the two variables is positive
and significant also (level of confidence at.05).The results were consistent
with the hypotheses therefore the hypotheses was supported.
negative impact on the level of motivation of employees.
To test these hypotheses correlations were conducted. The results of the
correlation analyses revealed LaissezFaire Leadership style has a negative
impact on the level of employee motivation but not statistically significant.
237
5.8 Conclusion
Leadership Styles and Employee Commitment
The empirical results of the research supported the hypotheses and led to
their acceptance.
transformational
A significant positive linear relationship between

leadership
and
employee
commitment
was
found.
Furthermore, a significant, positive linear relationship between transactional

leadership and commitment was found. The results also indicated that there is
a significant, negative linear relationship between laissez-faire leadership
behaviour and affective commitment. These findings support the results of
other
scholarly studies.
Bass
and
Avolio
(1994)
stated
that
both
transformational and transactional leadership style enhance the level of

commitment to the organization among employees. The effects of both styles
on organizational commitment were consistent with Basss augmentation
theory of leadership, which postulates that successful leaders are both
transformational
and
transactional.
The
results
also
indicated
that
transformational leadership styles had a greater impact on the level of

organizational
commitment
of
employees
compared
to
transactional
leadership style. This could be attributed to two factors; first, the

transformational leadership focuses more on the human side of individuals
and second, the transformational leadership components may be more in
practice among the corporate sector. In relation to this, Carlson and Perrewe
(1995) stated that, when transformational leadership is enacted, members of
organization no longer seek merely self-interest, but that which is beneficial to
the organization as a whole.
238
Leadership Styles and Work Motivation

The results of the study clearly revealed that transformational leadership style
significantly impacts Employee Motivation. Even transactional style does, but
transformational style is more effective in comparison. Laissez-faire style, as
in case of commitment, has a negative relationship with motivation.
Judge and Piccolo (2004) found a positive relationship between contingent
reward and follower motivation, however negative relationship was found
between Management by exception (passive) with follower motivation and
also shows the negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership with
follower
motivation.
Barbuto
(2005)
researched
on
Motivation
and
Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership and analysed

data from 186 leaders and their 759 raters. Transactional leadership
(contingent reward, Management by Exception (active) and Management by
Exception (passive) have significant and positive relationship with intrinsic
motivation. Relationship of Transactional leadership and its components like
contingent reward, Management by exception active and management by
exception passive have significant and positive relationship with Extrinsic
motivation. Webb (2003) conducted a study on Presidents Leadership
Behaviors Associated with Followers and found that Laissez fair leadership
has significant and negative relationship with motivation toward extra effort.
Centre for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com
In general, Indian employees are motivated by social rewards, selfactualization needs, compensation and improved working conditions. It is
exceedingly important for a leader of any organization to communicate his or
her vision constantly to ensure that there is no doubt about the direction a
team is heading, says Ken Blanchard, renowned management coach. As the
239
study indicates, for leaders to succeed in todays fast changing business

environment, it is recommended that they adopt a transformational leadership
style rather than transactional or laissez-faire styles to enhance employees
motivation consistently and efficiently; which will in turn generate higher
quality performance on the employees part and boost business performance.
The leaders should avoid any laissez-faire behavior and spend time coaching,
paying attention to employees abilities and needs, help them develop their
talent, and provide a supportive environment. This would help achieve higher
performance standard within the organization. They should also enhance their
knowledge about how their leading style influences their employees. They
should select the style best suited to the organizational goals and employees
needs and desires. To ensure higher employee performance, they should act
as ethical role models and be accepted as such.
Another issue raised by the survey is that the leaders should encourage
employees to push the bar and challenge themselves with roles which utilise
their full potential, talent and creativity. This would align employees to the
organisational vision and make them more confident and eager to perform the
allocated tasks.
240
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
241
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter consolidates the findings and brings out the essence of the study
through conclusive thoughts, after a discussion. The discussion section
provides an explanation of the results and clarifies how they are related to the
literature. The second section is concerned with providing meaningful
conclusions derived from the study findings.
6.1 Discussion
The research questions for this study include the following:
Research Questions:
1. To what extent are the employees committed to their organisations?
motivation?
commitment?
4. Is there a difference in the level of commitment among employees on
the basis of demographic and job related variables?
5. Is there a difference in the level of motivation among employees on the
basis of demographic and job related variables?
To answer these questions, a thorough and detailed review of the literature on
leadership and employee a) Commitment and b) Motivation was conducted.
Based on the review of the literature, 6 hypotheses were derived and tested
by the researcher.
242
Before discussing the results of testing the hypotheses, some comments

should be made regarding the characteristics of the respondents. The findings
of this study indicated that a plurality of respondents were between the ages
of 40 and 49 (39.9%), held Master Degree/MBA/MMS (50.9%), among it
25.2% with graduation in BA / B.COM / BSc / B.E. and 23.9% with MA /
M.COM / M.E. / MSc, 79.1% were married, 47.2% were middle managers,
39.3% were in the middle income category, and 29.1% had worked between
11 and 15 years in corporate, 76.7% were of the male gender, 49.1% have
experienced internal promotions in their present organization within 3 and 6.
The relationships between the answers of the majority on the eight
demographic items are logically accepted.
The findings underline the importance of relationships between supervisors
and employees and the way the organization communicates; a finding
supported
by
similar
studies
which
have
shown
supervision
and
communication to be important factors in terms of employee motivation.

These findings are supported by earlier studies which also used Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire and the full range leadership development
behaviors in various organizations (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Bass 1985;
Jandaghi, Zarei Matin and Farjami 2002).
There is a positive association between individualized consideration and all
the employee motivation sub-variables. These results are consistent with
previous studies showing the significant positive influence of transformational
leadership factors on motivation and the significant negative influence of
laissez-faire leadership on subordinates motivation (Bass and Avolio 1994;
Loke, 2001; Bass 1998; Avolio 1999, Shim et al. 2002; Waldman et al 2001;
243
Lok and Crawford 1999; Howell and Avolio 1993). This finding is consistent
with some previous studies which found that delivering on the promise of a
contingent reward has a significant influence on employee motivation.
Rewarding and encouraging are consistently considered by commentators to
be one of the important motivators (Snape 1996; Erkutlu 2008).
The instruments used to determine the impact and the findings obtained,
clearly
indicates
that
by
providing
adequate
coaching,
mentoring,
encouragement, supporting work environment, sense of respect and

confidence in employees ability, the leaders can increase employee
motivation.
The findings of this study revealed that the majority of employees of the
organisations researched were found to be committed to the organization,
while the remaining percentage were found either neutral or uncommitted.
These results were consistent with the hypothesis that the majority of the
employees were found to be highly committed to their organization. One
explanation of this result could be that the majority of the employees are well
paid and have family responsibility and are belonging to the male gender
category that positively affects their level of commitment to the organization.
Very high levels of education negatively affect the level of commitment of
employees. Steers (1977) argued that employees with higher levels of
education may have higher expectations which make it difficult for an
organization to meet such expectations and results in less committed
employees. Another explanation of this could be that private sector
employees are more committed to their organization than their counterparts in
the private sector. Buchanan (1974) also observed that public managers are
244
.less involved, less loyal, and display weaker identification with the aims of
their agencies than business executives. (p.345).
The results of the study showed that the majority of the employees observed
their Heads of the Departments as transformational and transactional. This
result was also consistent with what the study hypothesized.
However, there is a prevalence of transactional and transformational
leadership characteristics among the majority of function heads/supervisors.
The literature revealed that transactional leadership is a type of leadership
that is based on an exchange relationship between leader and follower. The
transactional leaders focus on the clarification of task requirements and the
specification
of
contingent
rewards
(Bass,
1990),
whereas
the
Transformational leaders transform the needs, aspirations, and values of

followers from a focus on self-interest to a focus on collective interest. They
practice trust building to create strong commitment to a common mission.
They generate emotion, energy, and excitement that cause followers to make
significant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform
above and beyond the call of duty. (Lussier /Achua, 2008).
Transformational leadership has been found to be positively related to
organizational commitment and work motivation. Also, as found from the
result of the study the commitment level is quite high among the employees.
Therefore the result confirms the earlier studies and definitions of
transformational leadership style too and also indicated that the majority of the
respondents viewed their heads as transformational. The result also shows
that the heads are not following Laissez Faire Leadership style. The findings
confirm the earlier literature too that it describes a process of positive
245
influence that changes and transforms individuals, organizations, and

communities. Transformational leaders influence their constituencies to make
the shift from focus on self-interests to a focus on collective interests. They
understand the importance of trust building as a means to creating a high
commitment to mission-driven outcomes. Effective transformational leaders
use their charisma and power to inspire and motivate followers to trust and
follow their example. They generate excitement and energy by focusing on
the future (Lussier/Achua, 2008).
Transactional Leadership seeks to maintain stability within an organization
through regular economic and social exchanges that achieve specific goals
for both the leaders and their followers. Burns indicated that the transactional
leaders influence followers by transactions of exchange in which rewards
such as pay, promotions, or status are exchanged for work. Bass maintains
that transactional leadership revolves around the leader-follower exchange, in
which the leader rewards the follower for specific behaviours and performance
that meets with the leaders expectations, and punishes or criticizes behaviour
or performance that does not meet expectation.
Both transactional and transformational style works but better results are
achieved by transformational leaders than transactional. Despite these
differences, it is worth mentioning that effective leaders exhibit both
transactional and transformational leadership skills in appropriate situations. A
meta-analytic test of the relative validity of transformational and transactional
leadership styles revealed that both are valid approaches for achieving
organizational objectives,(B.M. Bass, B.J.Avolio, D.I.Jung,and Y.Berson,2003)
with transformational leadership showing the highest overall relations and
246
transactional or contingent reward leadership a close second.(T.Judge and

R.Piccolo,2004).
Consistent with what this study hypothesized, the results revealed that both
Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles had a positive impact
on the level of organizational commitment of employees. Further, it has been
found that the level of organizational commitment of employees was positively
related to the initiating and consideration structure behaviours(which are
similar to transactional and transformational leadership styles, respectively)of
their immediate managers (Morris & Sherman,1981).In other research, the
positive relationship between transformational leadership style and the level of
organizational commitment was emphasized(Bateman & Strasser,1984;Bycio
et al.,1995; Carlson & Perrewe,1995; Morris Sherman,1981). The effects of
both styles on organizational commitment were consistent with Basss
augmentation theory of leadership. Basss augmentation theory of leadership
postulates that successful leaders are both transformational and transactional.
Based on this theory, transformational and transactional leadership styles
should have positive effects on the level of organizational commitment of
employees and this is what this study demonstrated. The findings showed that
transformational and transactional leadership styles positively affected
organizational commitment. The results also indicated that transformational
leadership had a greater impact on the level of organizational commitment of
employees compared to transactional leadership. This could be attributed to
two factors; first, the transformational leadership focuses more on the human
side of individuals. In relation to this, Carlson and Perrewe (1995) stated that,
when transformational leadership is enacted, members of organizations no
247
longer seek merely self-interest, but that which is beneficial to the

organization as a whole.
The findings of this study revealed that there was a significant positive
relationship between the age of employees and their organizational
commitment level. An explanation of this finding could be that when
employees get older, their alternative employment opportunities become
limited. As a result, they are likely to develop more positive attitudes toward
their organization including organizational commitment. This finding was
consistent with the literature (Angle & Perry, 1981; Hrebiniak, 1974; Lee,
1971; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Mowday et al. (1982) and Meyer and Allen
(1984) indicated that when the individual gets older and remains with an
organization longer, the individuals opportunities for alternative employment
tend to decrease, thereby enhancing the employees commitment to the
organization.
With respect to the relationship between education and the level of
organizational commitment of employees, the results demonstrated that there
was a positive relationship between the two variables but is not statistically
significant. To explain this relationship, we can say that more educated
employees often have higher expectations which may be met with in
academic institution, since the promotion is based on academic developments
and not only performance based. Though previous literature and research
study conducted in public organization in Saudi Arabia confirms that highly
qualified employees adversely affects employees level of commitment toward
their organization (Faisal Homoud A-Ammaj, 2000). In relation to this,
248
Mowday et al.(1982),Steers (1977),Mathieu and Zajac (1990), and ALKahtany (1998) found education to be inversely related to commitment.
As predicted, the results of this study showed that there was a significant and
positive relationship between the length of service of employees and
employee commitment. This finding was consistent with previous studies (ALKahtany, 1998; Angle & Perry, 1981; Hrebiniak, 1974; Lee, 1971; Mathieu and
Zajac, 1990). One explanation for this finding can be that when employees
stay longer with an employer; their alternative employment opportunities
become limited. This positively affects the employees attitudes toward the
employer and consequently enhances their organizational commitment. It may
also be that the longer one is in an organization, the more acclimated they
become to the norms and values that constitute part of the organizational
culture.
With regard to occupational status, the results indicated that occupational
status was positively related with employee commitment but is not statistically
significant. In other research, it has been found that a positive relationship
between occupational status and employee commitment exists (AL-Kahtany,
1998; Wiener & Vardi, 1980).
This positive relationship could be due to the fact that employees who occupy
top-level or heading the department have more pay and prestige. As a result,
employees tend to be more committed. Additionally, the results indicated that
there was a positive relationship between compensation and employee
commitment. And this effect was statistically significant at .05 levels; it was
significant at .10 levels. A logical explanation for such a relationship is that
pay or monthly income is one of the most important factors that assess
249
employees attitudes toward their organization. This finding supports previous

research studies (AL-Kahtany, 198; Angle & Perry, 1983; Becker, 1960). This
result of this finding was statistically significant and was positively related to
employee commitment. This result is consistent with the literature (Kawakubo,
1987; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990). To explain this, one may say that married
employees often have big responsibilities for their families which force them to
be more committed than others. For instance, it is more cost incurring and risk
taking for a married employee who has family responsibility upon him to leave
his employer without alternative employment or income than a single
employee. These responsibilities force married employees to be more
committed to their employing organizations.
In testing the hypothesis based on gender classification, the findings clearly
showed that there is a positive relation of both the gender with employee
commitment, but the result of the findings was not statistically significant. The
hypothesis demands that male gender will be more committed to their
organizations than their female counterparts. Gender, as a topic in
organizational commitment literature, has been approached from both the
gender-model and the job model (Aven, Parker, & McEvoy, 1993). The
gender approach to the study of women and organizational commitment was
described as one where the basic belief was that, "women accept family roles
as a chief source of their identity and fulfilment, leading to a different
orientation to work for men, for whom work is paramount" (Loscocco, 1990, p.
155).
In testing the final hypothesis, the findings clearly showed that employees
who had undergone internal promotion within 0-6 years are more committed
250
to their organization than the rest. The explanation of this could be the simple
psychology of employees ambition to be promoted keeps their commitment to
their employer. To summarize the result it could be suggested that the most
committed employee is the one who is older, educated, has a high monthly
income, has served the organization for a considerable period of time, is
married, male, and undergoes early promotions, and works under a leader
who is more of transformational, transactional too but less laissez-faire in
following the leadership styles with an expectation of their Leaders to be more
and more Transformational in nature.
6.2 Conclusion
For an organisation to progress, it is important to understand the factors that
influence organisational behaviour and employee psyche. This study was
concerned with some of the critical determinants of employee performance a)
how leadership style impacts commitment and b) how leadership style
impacts motivation. The literature revealed that both subjects were critical
determinants of organisational success, irrespective of whether it was public
or private. The organisations in the corporate sector were also chosen
accordingly. Based on the findings of the present study, the researcher
developed the following conclusions:
1. The
findings
of
this
study
indicated
that
transactional
and
transformational leadership styles positively impacted the level of

employee commitment. Additionally, the findings showed that the
organizational commitment of individuals was negatively affected by
the laissez-faire leadership style. Thus, in terms of organizational
251
commitment, these results provide support for the cross-cultural

applicability of Basss augmentation theory of leadership, which
postulates that successful leaders are both transformational and
transactional. Bass (1996) stated that although the model of
transformational or transactional leadership may have needs for
adjustments and fine-tuning as we move across cultures, particularly
into non-Western, overall, it holds up as having a lot of universal
potential.(p.754). Furthermore, consistent with Basss theory that
stressed that successful leaders are more transformational, the
findings of this study demonstrated that the employees expect their
manager to be more transactional in nature while dealing their subordinates and confirmed that sub-ordinates of transformational leaders
were more committed to the organization than those who were under
transactional leaders.
2. The results revealed that the majority of the employees were found to
be committed to the organization.
3. The majority of the employees observed their leaders to exhibit
transformational and transactional characteristics, but expect their
Heads to whom they report to be more transformational in nature and
follow contingent reward as well as management by exception-active
when concerning transactional leadership. Management by exception
passive was not accepted by the employees.
4. Consistent with early research studies, the demographic variables of
age, education, monthly income, marital status i.e., married employees
had significant positive impacts on employee commitment. The result
252
also shows that length of service, internal promotion, occupational

status are positively related to employee commitment but the statistical
results are not significant.
The result also shows that both male and female employees are
positively related to employee commitment but their statistical findings
showed no significant difference.
253
CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
254
CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
7.1 Recommendations
Indian employees are motivated by social rewards, self-actualization needs,
compensation, and improved working conditions. To reach the hearts and
minds of employees, leaders need to walk-the-talk, with an impelling vision.
It is exceedingly important for a leader of any organization to communicate
his or her vision constantly to ensure that there is no doubt about the direction
a team is heading, says Ken Blanchard, world-renowned management
coach. Hence some of the well-known employment brands known for their
leadership values, focus on employee engagement through commitment and
discretionary effort and on employee enablement, with optimized roles and a
supportive environment, leading to financial success, customer satisfaction
and employee performanceall to drive organizational performance.
Supervisors expect their followers to be loyal to them. The results of this study
provided insights into what employees need from their supervisors and what
kinds of leadership behaviors they prefer. This information could be used to
help develop strategies and meet the needs through leadership behavior
development. According to the results, some strategies for improving
supervisor's leadership and employee's loyalty could be suggested.
It indicated that transformational leadership behavior would improve
employees' higher loyalty to the supervisors and participative interaction. The
leaders or supervisors should be aware of what is important for the
255
subordinates and the organizations, and encourage the employees to see the
opportunities and challenges around them creatively. The supervisors should
have their own visions and development plans for followers, working groups
and organizations. The supervisors should have sense of innovation. And
also, they should encourage followers to seek more opportunities and
possibilities, not just achieve performance within expectations. Supervisors
should understand the values of the followers and try to build their business
strategies, plans, processes and practices. Respect for the individual is also
very important for building a positive relationship between leaders and
employees. Especially, employees prefer idealized attributes leadership
behaviors from their supervisors because it can increase their level of loyalty
toward the supervisor. Employees would like to be respected by co-workers
and supervisors. Therefore, the supervisors should act respected for good of
the working group and employees. They should connect with the working
group and the individuals beyond self-interest. A sense of confidence and
power for the workloads should be displayed.
Supervisor's passive or avoidant leadership style will decrease employee's
loyalty level. So attempts should be made by the supervisors to try and avoid
acting as this leadership style. Contrarily, expectations should also be clarified
and goals and standards to be achieved for the followers be provided. There
should not be a last minute rush to jump in when the problems become more
serious. When problems arise, there should be supervisory interventions as
soon as possible, responses to urgent questions should be immediate and
decision-making more prompt and precise. The fear of getting involved in
problem solving should be gotten rid of completely.
256
Regarding the results of correlation analysis, it indicated that transformational

leadership, transactional leadership and passive leadership all have
significant correlations with employee loyalty to supervisor. Transformational
leadership had strong and positive correlations with employee's general
loyalty to supervisor, and strong positive with all the five dimensions of loyalty
except extra effort for supervisor. The group of specific behaviors factors of
transformational leadership positively correlated with attachment to supervisor
and internalization of supervisor's values. Therefore, as mentioned before,
leaders or supervisors should be aware of the importance of transformational
leadership style and try to display it in practices.
Transactional leadership is also an effective leadership style. It had moderate
and positive correlations with employee's loyalty to supervisor, and positive
correlations with attachment to supervisor and internalization of supervisor's
values. Specifically, contingent reward and active management-by-exception
also had moderate correlations with attachment to supervisor and
internalization of supervisor's values. Therefore, equitable pay and benefits
are very important for the relationships between employees and supervisor.
Supervisors should establish incorporative and fair rewards exchanging
relationships with the employees. They should clarify expectations and offer
recognition when goals are achieved and provide exchanges for their efforts
when followers meet the expectations. In this way, the employees would feel
recognized for their work accomplishments, knowledge and skills, and then
have more sense of responsibility and more willingness of make efforts for
their job. And also, when deviances or mistakes happen during the work,
257
supervisors should pay attention on the errors and standards required, keep
track all the mistakes, and take right actions as soon as possible.
Passive or avoidant leadership had negative correlations with employee's
loyalty to supervisor, negative correlations with dedication to supervisor and
extra effort for supervisors. Specifically, the sub-factors of passive
management-by-exception and Laissez-faire were also negatively correlated
with dedication and extra effort to supervisors. It was obvious to see that
passive or avoidant leadership is not an effective leadership style. So
supervisors should try to avoid this style. Supervisors should not wait until the
mistakes become serious or avoid decision making. Contrarily, supervisors
should get involved with important issues.
Supervisors should enrich the knowledge about the perceptions of leaders'
behaviors and how these behaviors relate to employee loyalty, motivation and
job satisfaction. Based on the results of the current study, leadership
development programs could help leaders understand the relationships
between effective leadership styles and developing employee loyalty.
The organizations can develop certain training programs or mentoring by
professionals for the supervisors and leaders. Professionals and trainers can
use the results from the current study to develop training programs that
support leadership development. The organization can provide leadership
training program or interventions to improve supervisor's leadership. The
leadership training program can be designed based on employee needs and
organizational needs. Also, psychological interventions are needed to clarify
for the employees about the relationship with supervisors, and the impacts of
leadership styles on loyalty and satisfaction, including leader's daily practice,
258
leadership behaviors, and the importance of feedback. The organization and

supervisors should involve employees in decision making and leadership
improvement and provide training and teamwork facilitation. In addition,
policies and practices related to rewards or feedback system in the
organizations can be adjusted to meet employees' needs in order to improve
employee commitment and motivation.
Leaders should especially focus on motivators such as dimensions of
discretion (freedom to choose, what, when and how activities are carried out),
job demands (controls vs lack of control over speed of activity), as well as apt
use of skills and competencies. As the study indicates, for leaders to succeed
in todays fast changing business environment, it is recommended that they
adopt a transformational leadership style rather than transactional or laissezfaire styles to enhance employees motivation consistently and efficiently;
which will in turn generate higher quality performance on the employees part
and boost business performance.
The leaders should avoid any laissez-faire behavior and spend time instead
coaching, paying attention to employees abilities and needs, help them
develop their talent, and provide a supportive environment. This would help
achieve higher performance standard within the organization. They should
also enhance their knowledge about how their leading style influences their
employees. They should select the style best suited to the organizational
goals and employees needs and desires. To ensure higher employee
performance, they should act as ethical role models and be accepted as such.
Another issue raised by the survey is that the leaders should encourage
employees to push the bar and challenge themselves with roles which utilise
259
their full potential, talent and creativity. This would align employees to the
organisational vision and make them more confident and eager to perform the
allocated tasks.
The managerial skills that the leaders should continue to develop are
creativity, team orientation, respect, listening skills, aligning to shared
objectives, coaching, and employee recognition. The leaders should ensure
that the reward and recognition system is reliable, trusted and time-tested and
highlights important and meaningful employee performance.
In conclusion, as this survey shows, the ideal leadership style should be a mix
of
transactional managerial abilities,
transformational
elements,
such
as
with
adequate
idealized
incorporation of
influence,
inspirational
motivation, and intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and other

ingredients such as creativity, team orientation, appreciation of others,
coaching, and recognition.
7.2 Suggestions
The results of this study summarized effective strategies of improving
leadership
skills
which
would
positively
impact
supervisor-employee
relationship. It is believed that this study would have added value to the
literatures on supervisors leadership styles, especially in the oil company
settings since there were limited literatures done on similar setting. Past
studies have constantly reported that transformational leadership is more
effective, productive, innovative, and satisfying to followers as both parties
work towards the good of organization propelled by shared visions and values
as well as mutual trust and respect (Avolio and Bass, 1991; Fairholm, 1991;
260
Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubrahmaniam, 1996; Stevens, DIntino and Victor,

1995). There is also a dimension of pseudo-transformational leaders who
would seek power and position even at the expense of their followers
achievements, however this study did not imply the presence of any, in the
sample researched.
In a summary, according to the results of this current study, the companies
covered in the study should pay more attention to improving supervisors'
management and leadership skills and to monitoring the relationship between
supervisors and employees. Some strategies and managerial plans need to
be developed in those companies in order to increase the organizational
effectiveness further.
The
characteristics
of
transformational
leadership
include
increasing
confidence and motivation, channelizing the followers performance for

accomplishing organizational goals, sharing beliefs and benefits, and being
open to employee's feedback and suggestions. The supervisors, especially
the ones in senior leadership roles, should have their own vision and
development plans for team members, working groups and organizations.
They should motivate encourage followers to challenge themselves, move out
of comfort zone and explore the untapped potential. They should be good
coaches as well, showing others the direction to follow, mainly by walking the
talk and setting an example. Empathy and emotional intelligence also lay the
foundation for an effective leader-follower relationship. By being change
agents and visionaries and having the ability to deal with complexity,
ambiguity and uncertainty, they exercise a tremendous amount of willing
control on the performance of their followers. In some situations, transactional
261
leadership is also an effective leadership style, having moderate and positive

correlations with employee's commitment, and positive correlations with
attachment to supervisor and internalization of supervisor's values. To be
more effective, they should clarify expectations and offer rewards and
recognition when goals are achieved. Supervisor's passive or avoidant
leadership style always decreases employee's commitment and hence should
be avoided at any cost. When faced with a crisis situation, supervisors should
try to intervene and get into a problem-solving mode as soon as possible.
Leadership styles that encourage employee commitment are necessary in
order for an organization to successfully implement business strategies,
achieve goals, gain competitive advantage and optimize human capital.
The organizations can develop certain training programs to develop
leadership skills especially for managers who have a big span of control. Even
mentoring programs, sessions by executive coaches help senior leaders hone
their skills. Professionals and trainers can use the results from the current
study to develop leadership development training interventions, based on
organisational and individual needs. The organizational culture should be
such that employees are encouraged to get involved in decision making,
strategic thinking and futuristic planning. The reward and recognition system,
HR policies should all be geared towards creating a more positive working
environment, thereby increasing productivity. Such an enabling setup
automatically helps in employee retention. Volk and Lucas (1991)
demonstrated that leadership style was the only predictor of employee's
retention and explained 32% of the variance in turnover. Over a period of time
262
there have been other studies which have all indicated that employees leave
the manager, not the organisation.
7.3 Scope for Further Study

The study was restricted to the level of permanent full-time employees of
support functions and operations, in the western, eastern and northern states,
of selected organisations in FMCG, Oil and Petroleum segment, who are
exposed to management researches and studies of similar kinds. The
premise was that confirmed employees have spent significant amount of time
in the organisation and are equally affected by some basic processes which
could influence their perspectives on commitment and motivation. The study
could also be extended to the non-management category of employees at the
lower grades, where they could judge the leadership styles of supervisors
managing them. It could also be extended to other states of India and even
globally, since all these organisations have a significant global presence.
Future studies could focus on all organisations being in the same sector so
that some sectoral similarities and dis-similarities would emerge.
The variance of results depending on different geographies can be explored.
This would throw light on the impact that culture has on individuals and how
cultural factors influence the relationships between leadership styles and
employee performance, how to incorporate leadership development and
employee commitment in multicultural organizations with diverse social
background. It could improve productivity of organizations and employee
motivation. The issue of managing cultural diversity become more central.
The results of the current study were a little different from the previous
263
research, because some of the previous studies were conducted under

western cultural background and not in India. The leaders or supervisors in
organizations should be more aware of cultural differences than in the past
and should know more about other cultures and their nuances. Data could be
collected from both sides under western culture and Asian culture, which
would help realize the differences between employees' perceptions on
leadership.
The influences of gender and personality on the perception of leadership
behaviors were not investigated in this study, but they would influence the
relationships between leadership styles and employee loyalty. Investigating
the influence of gender differences on these variables may provide additional
information for leaders to adjust leadership behaviors in the work processes to
meet the needs of different demographic groups. So a recommendation is to
investigate the influence of demographic differences on the perception of
leadership behaviors in order to develop leadership training programs.
The instrument used for measurement of leadership styles was Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Future research could focus on whether this
instrument could be applicable on both collectivistic countries and
individualistic countries. In addition, the MLQ consists of rater form and leader
form. So perceptions on leadership styles and behaviors could be collected
from both sides of leaders and followers and in that case the supervisors'
leadership styles could be more subjective.
The current study examined how supervisor's leadership affected employee
commitment and job motivation. The low level of employee commitment and
motivation are attributed to supervisor's leadership style, but there are still
264
other factors that would affect employee commitment and motivation. Future
research could focus on other factors that might also affect employee's loyalty
level and retention. According to Herzberg'S motivation-hygiene theory,
factors that would lead to employee's dissatisfaction include supervision,
company policy, relationships with co-workers, work environments, and
rewards (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Factors that would lead to
employee motivation are his/her personal growth, achievement, recognition,
and responsibility (Herzberg et al., 1959). Supervision or supervisor's
leadership is just one of the causes that affect employee motivation and
commitment. Therefore, future research can be focused on this field.
A more detailed study can be carried out on the findings based on the
differences between public sector and private sector.
The results of the study would equip the organisational leadership to
determine which styles to adopt depending on the nature of business, so that
the employees are more committed and motivated and hence have a much
better engagement and connect with the organisation. Adoption of the
appropriate style will help induce trust and loyalty for the organisation. This, in
turn, will help organisations deal better with the challenge of employee
retention in the fast growing corporate world.
265
CHAPTER 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
266
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Adams, G. R. and Schvaneveldt, J. D. (1985). Understanding
Research Methods. New York: Longman.
2. Alderfer C. P. (1972). Existence, Relatedness and Growth : Human
Needs in Organisational Settings. New York : The Free Press
3. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2001) The development of a
new transformational leadership questionnaire. The Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74, 1-27.
4. Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The Measurement and Antecedents
of
Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the
Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, pg.1-18.

5. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Organizational commitment:
Evidence of career stage effect? Journal of Business Research, Vol26, Pg. 49-61.
6. Al-Kahtany, A. H. (1995). Dialectal ethnographic cleansing: ESL
students attitudes towards three varieties of English. Language and
Communication, 15, 165-180.
7. Alpander, G.G. (1990). Relationship between commitment to hospital
goals and job satisfaction: A case study of a nursing department.
Journal of Health Care Management Review, Vol-15, Pg 51-62.
8. Anderson, N., & King, N. (1993). Innovation in organizations.
9. Angel, H.L., & Perry, J.L. (1981). An Empirical Assessment of
Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness. Journal
of Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pg. 1-14.
267
10. Angel,
H.L.,
&
Perry,
J.L.
(1983).Organizational
Commitment:
Individual and Organizational Influences. Journal of Work and

Occupations.Vol-10, Pg 123-146.
11. Ansari, M.A. (1990). Managing People at Work: Leadership Styles and
Influence Strategy. Publisher: Sage Publication, New Delhi/London.
12. Aranya, N., Kushnir, T., & Valency, A. (1986). Organizational
commitment in a male-dominated profession. Journal of Human
Relations, Vol-39, Pg.433-448.
13. Austin, A.E., & Gammon, Z.F. (1983) Academic Workplace: New
Demands,
Heightened
Tensions.
Journal
of
Higher
Education
Research Report No.10.Wasington, DC: Association for the Study of

Higher Education.
14. Aven, F., Parker, B., & McEvoy, G. (1993). Gender and attitudinal
commitment to organizations: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business
Research, 26, 49-61.
15. Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1991). The Full Range of Leadership
Development: Basic and advanced Manuals. Publisher: Bass, Avolio, &
Associates.
16. Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness:
Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 60, 331347.
17. Bagozzi, R.P.; Bergami, M. & Leone, L. (2003). Hierarchical
representation of motives in goal setting. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 915943.
268
18. Bansal, H. S. and Taylor, S.F. (1999), ``The service provider switching
model (SPSM): a model of consumer switching behaviour in the
service industry, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 20018.
19. Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational
leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 689- 697.
20. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of
transformational leadership training and attitudinal and financial
outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6),
827-832.
21. Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1998). Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
22. Baruch, Y. (1998). The Rise and fall of Organizational Commitment
and Human System Management, Vol-17, Pg 135-144.
23. Bass, B.M. (1981) Stogdills Handbook of leadership: Revised and
expanded edition. New York: The Free Press.
24. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations.
Publisher: Free Press, New York.
25. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of leadership (3rd Ed.).
New York: Free Press.
26. Bass, B.M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into
transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S.Army Research
Institute for Behavioural and Social Sciences.
27. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990a).The implications of transactional and
transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational
269
development. In W.A. Pasmore & W.Woodman (Eds.), Research in

Organizational Change and Development, Greenwich, CT: Jai Press,
Inc.Pg 231-272.
28. Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006).Transformational Leadership.
Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.
29. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). MLQ Multi-factor Leadership
Questionnaire Manual. Publisher: Mind Garden, Palo Alto.
30. Bateman, T.S. & Strasser, S. (1984). A Longitudinal Analysis of the
Antecedents of Organizational Commitment. Academy of Management
Journal, vol.27, pg. 95-112.
31. Batten, J.D. (1989).Tough-Minded Leadership. New York: American
Management Association (AMACOM).
32. Bennet H, Durkin M (2000). The effects of organisational change on
employee psychological attachment: An exploratory study. J. Manage.
Psychol. 15: 126-147.
33. Blickle, G. 2003. Convergence of agents and targets reports on
intraorganizational
influence
attempts.
European
Journal
of
Psychological, 19, 40-53.

34. Boyatzis, R.E. and Renio, A. (1989), Research article; the impact of an
MBA on managerial abilities, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 66-77.
35. Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the
concept and simplifying the existing construct typology. Journal of
Vocational Behaviour, Vol-49, Pg.230-251.
270
36. Becker, H.S. (1960) .Notes on the Concept of Commitment. American

Journal of Sociology, vol.66, pg. 32-40.
37. Beck, K, & Wilson, C (2000). Development of affective organizational
commitment: A cross-sequential examination of change with tenure.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(1), 114-136.
38. Behling, O. & Schriesheim, C. (1976).Organizational Behaviour:
Theory, research, and application. Boston: Allen and Bacon, Inc.
39. Benkhoff,
B.
(1997)
Disentangling
organizational
Commitment.
Reigel,
(1995).
Personnel Review, Vol-26, Pg.114-131.

40. Becker,
T.E.,
Randall,
D.M.,
&
C.D.
The
Multidimensional view of Commitment and the Theory of Reasoned

Action: A Comparative Evaluation. Journal of Management, Vol21 (4),
Pg.616-639.
41. Bergman, Lester, De Meuse & Grahn, 2000. Integrating the three
domains of employees commitment: an exploratyr study, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing
42. Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1975).An overview of the grid. Training
and Development Journal, Vol-29(5), Pg 29-37.
43. Bloch Bakhsh (2004), Effects of Job Satisfaction on Employees
Motivation & Turn over Intentions, Journal of Managerial Sciences,
Volume II, Number 1
44. Bowditch, J. L. and Buono, A. F. (1990). A Primer on Organizational
Behaviour. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
45. Boxall P., Macky K. & Rasmussen E. (2003), Labour turnover and
retention in New Zealand; the causes and consequences of leaving
271
and staying with employers, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,

vol.41(2), pp.196-214.
46. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What's the
difference?. Journal of Management Studies 39(1), 97122.
47. Brady, R.P. & Welborn, L. (1976, March). Radical selfdirected
approaches to career/life planning: A forward look at non-occupational
career guidance. Program presented at the annual meeting of the Ohio
Personnel and Guidance Association, Columbus, OH.
48. Brookes, S. M. (2007). 360 degree leadership in the public sector:
developing an approach to collective leadership. Paper presented at
the University of Delaware 3rd Transantlatic Dialoque conference.
Newark, Delaware, USA.
49. Brown, D. & Crace, R.K. (1996). Values in life role choices and
outcomes: a conceptual model. The Career Development Quarterly,
44, 211223.
50. Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in Organization. In S.R.Clegg, C.Hardy,
& W.Nord,
51. Bryman, A. (1986).Leadership and Organizations. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul. Buchanan, B. (1974a).Government Managers, Business
Executives, and Organizational Commitment. Public Administration
Review.Vol-34.Pg 339-347.
52. Brum, S. (2007).What Impact Does Training take over Employee
Commitment and Employee Turnover? Publisher: University of Rhode
Island, Kingston.
272
53. Buchanan, B. (1974b). Building Organizational Commitment: The

Socialization
of
Managers
in Work Organizations.
Journal
of
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol.14, pg.346-355.

54. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. Publisher: Harper & Row, New York.
55. Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J. (1995).Further assessments of
Basss (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol-80, Pg 468-478.
56. Cannella, Jr., A.A., & Monroe, M.J. (1997).Contrasting perspectives on
strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers.
Journal of Management, Vol-23, Pg 213-237.
57. Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J. & Mann, L. (2000). A Short Measure of
Transformational Leadership, Journal of Business and Psychology
14(3), 389405.
58. Carlson,
D.S.,
&
Perrewe,
P.L.
(1995).Institutionalization
of
Organizational Ethics through Transformational Leadership. Journal of

Business Ethics. Vol 14, Pg 829-838.
59. Cernea Mihail (1975), individual labor and motivation turnover under
socialism,acadmy of social and political sciences
60. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), Measuring the
efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 429-44.
61. Chaves, W.V. (2001). An empirical analysis of the effect of workrelated values and value congruence of job satisfaction, task
performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Dissertation
273
Abstracts
International,
62
(1-B),
584
(University
Microfilms
International).
62. Chemers, M.M. (1997). An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Publisher:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.
63. Coetzee. (2005). Employee Commitment. Publisher: University of
Pretoria (Pty) Ltd., Hatfield.
64. Cole, G.A. (2005) Personnel and Human Resource Management.
London: ELST Publishers.
65. Colbert AE, Kwon IWG (2000). Factors related to the organizational
commitment of college and university auditors. J. Manager. Issues,
12(4): 484-501.
66. Conger, J. A. 1999, .Charismatic and Transformational Leadership in
Organizations: An Insider's Perspective on these Developing Streams
of Research.. The Leadership Quarterly, vol.10, no.2, pp. 145-179.
67. Davar, R. (2007) 'The Future of Fuel Retailing in India', Shell World,
http://wwwstatic.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/swol/july_sept_2007/india_
retail/india_retail_en.pdf, pp.1-6.
68. Davis,
&
Newstorm,
J.W.
(1985).Human
Behaviour
at
work:
Organizational Behaviour (7th Ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill Book

Company.
69. Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L., 1998., Working Knowledge: How
Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School
Press
274
70. Deluga, R. J. (1990). The effects of Transformational, Transactional

and Laissez Faire Leadership characteristic on Subordinate Influencing
Behaviour. Journal of Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol- 11(2),
Pg. 191-203
71. DeShon, R.P. & Gillespie, J.Z. (2005). A motivated action theory
account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096
1127.
72. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
73. Dibble, R.H. (1997). The influence of four work values factors on the
relationships between the work environment and job-related attitudes.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (12-B). 7763 (University
Microfilms International).
74. Doody.P (2007), High-Involvement Work Systems: Their Effect on
Employee Turnover and Organizational Performance in New Zealand
Organizations
75. Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel Leadership : commitment and charisma
in a revolutionary process. New York : The Free Press
76. Drucker, P.F. 1999. The shape of things to come. In F. Hesselbein & P.
Cohen (Eds.). Leader to leader: Enduring insights on leadership from
the Drucker Foundations award-winning journal (pp. 109-120). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
77. Einstein, W. O. (1995). The challenge of leadership: A diagnostic
model of transformational leadership. The Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 120-133.
275
78. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L.
(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.
79. Erkutlu, H. (2008), Snape(1996) ; The impact of transformational
leadership on organizational and leadership effectiveness, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp.708-726.
80. Esposito,
J.
L.
(2002
November).
Interactive,
multiple-method
questionnaire evaluation research: A case study. Paper presented at

the
International
Conference
in
Questionnaire
Development,
Evaluation, and Testing (QDET) Methods. Charleston, SC.

81. Eztioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations.
New York. Free Press.
82. Fairholm, G. W. (1991). Values leadership: Towards a new philosophy
of leadership. New York: Praeger.
83. Faisal Homoud Al-Ammaj, 2000. An investigation of leadership style
and organizational commitment among Saudi public employees. Thesis
(Ph. D.)--Mississippi State University. Department of Political Science.
84. Fein, E.,Tziner, A. and Vasiliu, C. 2010. Age Cohort Effects, Gender,
and Romanian Leadership Preferences, Journal of Management
Development, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 364-376.
85. Field, R. H. G. (1979). A critique of the Vroom-Yetton Contingency
Model of Leadership Behaviour. Academy of Management Review,
Vol-4, Pg.249-257.
86. Fiedler, F.E. (1976). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. Publisher:
McGraw-Hill, New York.
276
87. Fiedler, F. E., & House, R.J. (1988).Leadership theory and research: A
report of progress. In C.L Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.). International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester, New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
88. Fitz-enz, J (1990). Getting and Keeping Good Employees. In
Personnel. August, v67, n8, pp 25-29.
89. Fleishman, E., and Hunt, J., Eds., Current Developments in the Study
of Leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973.
90. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker 1981 Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research 18: 1950.
91. Gaertner S (2000). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and
organisational commitment in turnover models. Hum. Res. Manage.
Rev., 9: 479-493.
92. Garcia-Morales, V., Matias-Reche, F., & Hurtado-Torres, N. 2008.
Influence of transformational leadership on organizational innovation
and performance depending on the level of organizational learning in
the pharmaceutical sector. Journal of Organizational Change, 21(2):
188212.
93. George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2008). Organizational Behavior. New
Delhi: Pearson Publication.
94. Ginzberg, E.; Ginsburg, S.W.; Axelrad, S.; Herma, J.L. (1951).
Occupational choice: an approach to a general theory. New York:
Columbia University Press.
277
95. Gopal R., Ghose Chowdhury R. (2014). Leadership styles and

employee Motivation : An empirical investigation in a leading oil
company in India. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in
Business Management (IMPACT: IJRBM)
96. Gopinath, C. and Becker, T.E. (2000). Communication, procedural
justice, and employee attitudes: relationships under conditions of
divestiture. In Journal of Management, v26, pp. 63-83.
97. Gordon, J.U., 2002, African leadership in the twentieth century: An
enduring experiment in democracy, University Press of America,
Lanham.
98. Goulder, Ed.Alvin W.,1950, Studies in Leadership: Leadership and
Democratic Action, Harper.
99. Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. (2009).Behavior in Organizations (9th ed.).
India: Pearson Prentice Hall Publication.
100.
Gregersen, H. B. (1993). Multiple commitments at work and
extra role behaviour during three stages of organizational tenure.

Journal of Business Research, Vol-26, Pg.31-47.
101.
Government of India, Planning Commission (2006), Towards
Faster and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to 11th Five Year Plan
(2007-2012). Government of India Planning Commission, New Delhi,
available
at:
http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/
app11_16jan.pdf (accessed June 26, 2008).
Government of India
(2002-2007), Tenth Five-year Plan: 2002-2007, Planning Commission,

New Delhi.
278
102.
Griffin, Mark A. & Rafferty, Alannah E (1990). Dimensions of
transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The

Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329354
103.
Groves, R. M., (1987). Research on survey data quality. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 51, 156-172.

104.
Guyot, J. F. (1962) Government bureaucrats are different. Public
Administration Review. 22(4), 195-202.

105.
Hannah, S., & Gardner, W. (2005), Veritable authentic
leadership: emergence, functioning, and impact, in W. Gardner, B.

Avolio & F. Walumbwa (eds), Authentic Leadership Theory and
Practice: Origins, Effects and Development (pp. 3-41), Elsevier, Oxford
106.
Hansen, J. R., & Villadsen, A. R. (2010). Comparing Public and
Private Managers' Leadership Styles: Understanding the Role of Job

Context. International Public Management Journal 13(3), 247-274.
107.
Hartog, Dd. N., Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P.L. (1997).Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol 70, Pg.19-35.

Helliegel, D., Slocum, J. W., and Woodman, R. W. Organizational
Behavior, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN, 1992. Herzberg F,
Mausner B, Snyderman B (1999). The motivation to work. New York:
Wiley.
108.
Hill, W. (1973). Leadership Style: Rigid or Flexible. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Pg.35-47.

109.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Management in a multicultural society.
Malaysian Management Review, 26, 3-12.
279
110.
Hollander, E.B., & Julian, J.W. (1969).Contemporary trends in
the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, Pg.387397.

111.
House, R. J. (1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leader-
Effectiveness. Journal of Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol-16,

Pg.321-338.
112.
Howell, J. M, & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control and support for

innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
113.
Hrebiniak, L. G. (1974). Effects of job level and participation on
employee
attitudes and
perception
of
influence.
Academy of
Management Journal, 17. 649-662.

114.
Hunt, J.G. (1991).Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

115.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource
management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635672.
116.
Ivancevich, J.M., Szilagyi, Jr., A.D., & Wallace, Jr., M.J.
(1977).Organizational
Behaviour
and
Performance.
Goodyear
Publishing Company, Inc.

117.
Jandaghi, Gh, Matin, H.Z., and Farjame, A. 2009. .Comparing
Transformational
Leadership
in
Successful
and
Unsuccessful
Companies., International Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, pp.

211-216.
280
118.
Jaros, S.J., Jermier, J.M., Koehler, J.W. & Sincich, T. (1993).
Effects of Continuance, Affective, and Moral Commitment on the

withdraw process: An Evaluation. Academy of Management Journal,
Vol 36(5), 951-995.
119.
J.E.Bono
ad
T.A.
Judge
(2004),
Personality
and
Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis,.

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol89, Pg 901-911.
120.
J. Leslie Mckeown, Retaining top employee, Tata McGraw Hill -
companies Inc, New York. Gratefully acknowledged.

121.
Johnston, M. W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C. M., & Black, W. C.
(1990). A Longitudinal Assessment of the Impact of Selected

Organizational
Commitment
Influence's
During
Early
on
Salespeople's
Employment.
Journal
Organizational
of
Marketing
Research, 27 (August), 333-344.

122.
Jones, G. R. (2001). Organizational theory: Text and cases (3rd
ed). London: Prentice Hall.

123.
Judge
and
R.
Piccolo
(2004),.Transformational
and
Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative

Validity,. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 89, Pg.755.
124.
Kanter, R.M. (1968). Commitment and Social Organization: A
study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities. Journal of

American Sociological View, Vol-33, Pg.449-517.
125.
Kanter R (1999). Managing Change - The Human Dimension.
Boston, MA: Good measure.
281
126.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of
organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. (Original work published

1966)
127.
Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organisational
performance
in
government
organisations.
Journal
of
Public
Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245-261.

128.
Kinnear, L. & Sutherland, M. 2001. Money is fine, but what is the
bottom line? Journal of the South African Institute of people

management, 19(1): 15-18.
129.
Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of
three core charismatic leadership components on performance and

attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51
130.
Krejcie & Morgan (1970). Determining Sample Size for
Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, #30,

pp. 607-610.
131.
Kelman,
H.C.
(1958).
Compliance,
Identification,
and
Internalization: Three Process of Attitude Change. Journal of Conflict

Resolution.Vol-2, Pg.51-60.
132.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of
transformational
leadership
on
teacher
attitudes
and
student
performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Development, 16,

319-333.
133.
Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I. M., & Mclntyre, J. M. (1971).Organizational
Psychology: An Experiential Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
282
Hall,
Inc.
Landy,
F.J.
(1985).Psychology of
Work
Behaviour.
Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

134.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge:
how to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations.

California: Jossey-Bass.
135.
Landy, F. J. 1989. Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove,
CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

136.
Lassey, W. (1976). Leadership and social change. California:
University Associates.
137.
Lewin, K (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York :
Mcgraw-Hill
138.
Lincoln J. R., Kalleberg A. L.(1990). Culture, control, and
commitment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

139.
Lind B, Stevens J (2004). Match your merger integration
strategy and leadership style to your merger type. Strateg. Lead.,

32(4): 10-16.
140.
Liou,
K.
T.
(1995,
Apr.)
Professional
Orientation
and
Organizational Commitment among Public Employees: An Empirical

Study of Detention Workers. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, Vol-5(2), Pg.231-247.
141.
Lockwood, D. & Anari, A. 1999. Recruiting & retaining scarce
information technology talent: a focus group study,
Industrial
Management & Data System, 99(6): 251-256.

142.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between
commitment and organizational culture, subculture, leadership style
283
and job satisfaction in organizational change and development.

Leadership & Organizational Development, 20(7), 365-377
143.
Loscocco, K. A. (1990). Reactions to blue-collar work: A
comparison of women and men. Journal of Work and Occupations,

Vol-17, Pg.152-177.
144.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
Effectiveness
correlates
of
transformational
and
transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S10489843(96)90027-2
145.
Lussier, R. N., and Achua, C. F. Leadership: Theory,
Application, Skill Development. (3rd ed.) Mason, Ohio: Thomson

Higher Education, 2007.
146.
Luthans, et al. 2005. The psychological capital of Chinese
workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and

Organization Review, 1: 247-269.
147.
Maertz, C. P. & Griffeth, R. W. 2004. Eight motivational forces &
voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for

research, Journal of Management, 30(5): 667-683.
148.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY:
Harper. pp. 92.

149.
Mathieu J. E., Zajac D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of
antecedents,
correlates,
and
consequences
of
organizational
commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
284
150.
McGregor, D (1960), Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw Hill,
New York.
151.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values
determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825.

152.
Meudell, K. & Rodham, K. 1998. Money isnt everything or is
it? A preliminary research study into money as a motivator in the

licensed
house
sector,
International
Journal
of
Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 10(4): 128-132.

153.
Meyer,
J.
&
Allen.
N.J,
(1991).
Three
Component
Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Human

Resource Management Review, Vol. I, Pg.61-89.
154.
Meyer, J.P. & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the
Workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management

Review, Vol-11, Pg.299-326.
155.
Meyer, R.C. & Schoorman, F.D. (1992).Predicting Participation
and Production Outcomes through a Two-Dimensional Model of

Organizational Commitment. Academy of Management Journal. Vol35(3), Pg.671-684.
156.
Miner, J. B. (1986). Managerial role motivation training. Journal
of Management Psychology, 1, 25-30.

157.
Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust
theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 20-38.

158.
Morrow,
Paula
C.
(1983),
"Concept
Redundancy
in
Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment," Academy

of Management Journal, 8, 486-500.
285
159.
Morris, J., and Sherman, J. (1981). Generalizability of an
organizational commitment model. Academy of Management Journal,

24(3), 512.
160.
Mowday, R., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-
Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism,

and Turnover. Publisher: Academic Press, New York.
161.
Nel PS, Van Dyk PS, Haasbroek GD, Schultz HB, Sono TJ,
Werner A(2004). Human Resources Management (6th ed). New York:

Oxford University Press.
162.
Niehoff, B. F & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of
the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational

citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.
163.
Nijhof, W. J., De Jong, M.J., & Beukhof, G (1998).Employee
Commitment in Changing Organizations: an Exploration. Journal of

European Industrial Training. Vol-22 (6), Pg.243-248.
164.
Norland-Tilburg, E. V. (1990). Controlling error in evaluation
instruments.
Journal
of
Extension,
[On-line],
28(2).
Available
athttp://www.joe.org/joe/1990summer/tt2.html
165.
O'Reilly, C A. & Chatman, J, A. (19S6). Organizarional
commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance,

identification and internalization on prosocial behavior, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71, 492-19V.
166.
Osborn M 2008 Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In
Smith JA (ed) Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research

nd
methods, 2 edn. pp 53-80. London, Sage.

286
167.
Osborn, Schermerhorn, & Hunt (2008).Organizational Behavior
(10thed.). USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

168.
Ozaralli, N. 2003. .Effects of Transformational Leadership on
Empowerment and Team Effectiveness., Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, vol. 24, no.6, pp. 335-344.
169.
Pavett C, Lau A (1983). Managerial work: The influence of
hierarchical level and functional specialty. Acad. Manage. J. 26: 170177.

170.
Pfeffer J (1998). Seven practices of successful organizations.
Calif. Manage. Rev. 40: 96-123.

171.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. Morrman, R. H. & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational Leader Behaviors and their Effects on

Followers Trust in Leader Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
172.
Porter, Lyman W., William J. Crampon, and Frank J. Smith 1976
"Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A Iongitudinal

study." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15: 87-98.
173.
Quinn, R.E.(1988). Beyond Rational Management: London:
Jossey Bass
174.
Radhakrishna, R. B. Francisco, C. L., & Baggett. C. D. (2003).
An analysis of research designs used in agricultural and extension

education. Proceedings of the 30thNational Agricultural Education
Research Conference, 528-541.
287
175.
Rafferty, A. E., Griffin M. A. (2004).
Dimensions of
transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The

Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 329354
176.
Rama B. Radhakrishna, Associate Professor, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Tips for Developing

and Testing Questionnaires/Instruments
177.
Randall, D. M. and Cote, J. A. (1991). `Interrelationships of work
commitment constructs', Work and Occupation, 18, 194-211.

178.
Reis, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The
theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology,8, 179193.

179.
Robbins, S.P. (1994). Essentials of Organizational Behaviour
(4th.Ed). Publisher: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Robbins, S.P.

(1994).Essentials of Organizational Behaviour (4th Ed.).Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
180.
Rocheach, M. (1973): The nature of human values. New York:
Free Press
181.
Reitz,
H.J.
(1981).Behaviour
in
Organizations
(Rev.ed).
Homewood, IL: Richard D.Irwin, Inc.

182.
Romzek, B.S. (1990) .Employee Investment and Commitment:
The ties that bind. Public Administration Review.Vol-50, Pg.374-382.

183.
Rucci, A.J., Kirn, S.P. and Quinn, R.T. (1998), ``The employee
customer profit chain at SEARS, Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary,pp. 82-97.
288
184.
Samuel, M. O., & Chipunza, C. (2009). Employee retention and
turnover: using motivational variables as a panacea. African Journal of

Business Management, 3(8), 410-415.
185.
Schermerhorn,
Jr.,
J.R.,
Hunt,
J.G.,
Osborn,
R.N.
(1982).Managing Organizational Behaviour. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.
186.
Schmoker, M. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies
from dramatically improved schools. Alexandria, VA: Association of

Supervision and Curriculum Development.
187.
Scholl,
R.W.
(1981).
Differentiating
Commitment
from
Expectancy as a Motivational Force. Academy of Management

Review.Vol-6, Pg.589-599.
188.
Schon, D. A. (1984). Leadership as reflection in action. In T. J.
Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational

culture (pp. 36-63). Urbana: University of Illinois
189.
Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the
leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 22, 386407
190.
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Johnson, J. L., & Lockhart, D. E. 2005.
Turnover, social capital losses, and performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 48: 594-606.
191.
retail
Shim S., Lusch R. F., Goldsberry E. Leadership style profiles of

managers:
characteristics.
personal,
International
organizational
Journal
of
and
Retail
&
managerial
Distribution
Management 2002; Vol. 30, No. 4. 186-201p
289
192.
Shouksmith, Geoge (1989). A Construct Validation of a Scale for
Measuring Work Motivation. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 1989,

18, 76-81
193.
Siegel, L., & Lane, I.M. (1982).Personal and Organizational
Psychology Homewood, IL: Richard D.Irwin, Inc.

194.
Smith, M. K. (1999) Born and Bred? Leadership, heart and
informal education, London: YMCA George Williams College/The Rank

Foundation.
195.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB
research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-392
196.
Spotts, J.V. (1964).The problem of leadership: A look at some
recent findings of behavioural science research.

197.
Stallworth LH (2003). Mentoring, organizational commitment and
intentions to leave public accounting. Manage. Audit. J., 18(5): 405418.

198.
Stauss, B., Chojnacki, K., Decker, A., Hoffman, F. (2001),
"Retention effects of a customer club", International Journal of Service

Industry Management, Vol. 12 No.1, pp.7-19.
199.
Steers,
Organizational
R.M.
(1975).
Commitment.
Antecedents
Journal
of
and
Outcome
Administrative
of
Science
Quarterly, Vol. 22, pg .46-56.

200.
Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J., & Trice, H. M. (1978). Assessing
personal,
role,
and
organizational
predictors
of
managerial
commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21. 380-396.
290
201.
Storey, William Kelleher. Writing History: A guide for Students.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999, p.18.

202.
Stogdill,
R.M.
(1948).Personal
factors
associated
with
leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, Vol25, Pg.35-71.

203.
Stredwick J (2005). An introduction to human resources
management.
(2nd
ed).Oxford:
Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann
Publishing.
204.
Stum DL (1999). Maslow revisited: Building the employee
commitment pyramid. Strateg. Leadersh., 29(4): 4-9.

205.
Suliman, A. M., & Iles, P. A. 1999. The multi-dimensional nature
of organizational commitment in a non-western context. Journal of

Management Development, 19: 71-82.
206.
Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers: An introduction
to vocational development. New York: Harper & Brothers.

207.
Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career
development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career

choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice
(2nd ed., pp. 197-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
208.
Stredwick J (2005). An introduction to human resources
management.
(2nd
ed).Oxford:
Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann
Publishing.
209.
Sutermeister, R.A. (1969). People and Productivity. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
291
210.
Swanepoel B, Erasmus B, Van Wyk M, Scheck H (2000). South
African Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. Kenwyn:

Juta.
211.
Taylor, R.L., & Rosenbach, W.E. (1989).Leadership: Challenges
for todays manager. New York: Nichols Publishing. Orange, NJ:

Leadership Library of America.
212.
Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1993).The Cultures of Work
Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

213.
T.Judge
and
R.Piccolo
(2004),
.Transformational
and
Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative

Validity,. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 89, Pg.755.
214.
UNESCO: India, updated August 2003 and Annual Report
2004/5, Ministry of Human Resource Development, India (overview). Newsletter,
October-December
2005,
International
Institute
for
Educational Planning.
215.
UNESCO. Learning without Burden, NCERT, 1993, reprinted
2004. - Annual report 2004/5, Ministry of
Human Resource
Development, India (annexes).

216.
Venkatapathy, R. (1990). Perception of Top Management
Leadership Styles and Climate: A Study of Private and Public

Executives, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 25(3 ), 303-311.
217.
Volk, M., & Lucas, M. (1991). Relationship of management style
and anticipated turnover. Dimensions of Critical Care, 10 (1),35-40.

218.
Voon, M. L., Lo, M. C., Ngui, K. S. & Ayob, N. B. (2011). The
influence of leadership styles on employees job satisfaction in public
292
sector organizations in Malaysia, International Journal of Business,

Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24-32.
219.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and Decision
Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

220.
Waldman,
D.A.,
Bass,
B.M.,
&
Einstein, W.O.
(1987).
Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 60, 177-186.
221.
Walumbwa & Lawler (2003). Leadership, Individual Differences,
and Work-related Attitudes: A Cross-Culture Investigation

222.
Walton, R.E. (1985). From Control to Commitment in the
Workplace. Publisher: Harvard Business Review, Vol.63, pg.77-84.

223.
Wang,
and
Huang,
T.
2009.
.The
Relationship
of
transformational Leadership with Group Cohesiveness and Emotional

Intelligence.. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, vol.37, no.3,
pp. 379-392.
224.
Webb,
K.
S.
(2003).
Presidents
Leadership
Behaviors
Associated with Followers Job Satisfaction, Motivation toward extra

effort, and Presidential. Dissertation, University Of North Texas,
December, 2003. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531.
225.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic
Organization {A. N. Henderson &T. Parsons, eds & trans). Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
226.
Wiener, Yoash (1982), Commitment in Organizations: A
Normative View, Academy of Management Review, 7 (3), 418428.
293
227.
Williams, J. C. (1978).Human Behaviour in Organizations.
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.

228.
William B, Werther J (1996). Human Resource and Personnel
Management, 5th Edition, Mc Graw-Hill, New York

229.
Woods, F.A. (1913). The influence of monarchs. New York:
Macmillan.
230.
Yammarino, F. & Bass, B. 1990. Transformational Leadership
and Multiple Levels of Analysis. Human Relations, 43(10): 975-995.

231.
Zangaro, G. A. (2001). Organizational commitment: A concept
analysis. Nursing Forum, 36 (2), 14-23.

232.
Zeffane R (2003). Patterns of Organizational Commitment and
Perceived Management Style: A Comparison of Public and Private

Sector Employees. Hum. Relat., 47(8): 977-1010.
Web Sources :
http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm
http://www.joe.org/joe/2007february/tt2.php
OBrien, D. (2004). Leadership in the Public sector. Retrieved on

March, 10, 2012 from:
http://www.ashridge.org.uk/website/IC.nsf/wFARATT/Behind%20The%
20Screens:%20Leadership%20In%20The%20Public%20Sector/$file/B
ehindtheScreens.pdf
Wood, J. (2008). Leadership in public and private sector. Retrieved on

Feburary 01, 2012 from
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/01/leadership-in-public-and
private-sectors/
294
Publications :
Unlocking the DNA of the Adaptable Workforce : The Global Human

Capital Study 2008
Nandan Nilekani, Imagining India: The Idea of a Renewed Nation

(Penguin, 2009)
James MacGregor Burns, Transformational Leadership (2nd Edition)
Steven Covey, 7 Habits of Highly Successful People.
The Transformational Leadership Report 2007

www.transformationalleadership.net
Robert Quinn , Deep Change - Discovering the Leader Within
Robert P. Brady, Work Motivation Scale
Driving Organizational Performance amidst an Imbalanced Global

Workforce by Josh Bersin, Bersin & Associates Research Report, 2011
Kim S. Cameron, Robert E. Quinn. Diagnosing and Changing

Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework
Luthans, F. (2005).Organizational Behavior (10thed.).McGraw Hill/

Irwin Publication.
Taking the leadership leap: Developing an effective executive pipeline

for Indias future, by Viren Doshi, Gaurav Moda, Jai Sinha, and Anshu
Nahar
295
ANNEXURE-I
QUESTIONNAIRES
296
ANNEXURE-I
QUESTIONNAIRES
PART-1
This part contains statements containing concerning general information
about the participant. Please read the following statements and check (If reply
is through e-mail then kindly state YES or NO) the category that best
describes your situation. (Name of Organisation:)
1) Age:
------------ Years
2) Education: (Type the qualification achieved for, eg. BA-MBA /MMS)
-----------BSc / BE / BCom / BA
-----------MA / MCom / MSc / ME / MCA
-----------Master Degree / MBA / MMS
----------Doctorate
3) Marital Status:
-----------Married
-----------Single
4) Occupational status
------------Operational Executive
-----------Middle manager
-----------Senior Manager
297
-----------Senior Executive
5) Monthly gross salary
---------- 2,00,000 and Above
----------1,00,000- 1,99,000
----------51,000- 99,000
---------35,000-50,000
6) Length of Service
----------- Years
7) Gender
----------Male
----------Female
8) Last promoted: -------- years back
PART-2
Employee Commitment Questionnaire
You are being asked to participate in a survey to provide the Researcher with
information that will help to improve the working environment for employees.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and confidentially is assured. No
individual data will be reported.
The following statements concern how you feel about the department /
function where you work. Please indicate the extent of your agreement or
disagreement with each statement by circling a number from 1 to 7.
298
If answering by way of e-mail then kindly RATE your answer by

choosing from 1-7, any number as per your rating, for e.g. 3 under the
column Rate. Please do not put your name on this questionnaire.
1
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Neutral
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
disagree
Employee Commitment Questionnaire

1
agree
Agree
Rate
I am willing to put a great deal of

effort
beyond
that
normally
expected in order to help this

organization be successful
2
I talk high about this organization to

my friends as a great organization
to work for
I feel very little loyalty to this

organization
I would accept almost any type of

job assignment in order to keep
working for this organisation.
299
find
that
organizations
my
values
values
are
and
very
similar
6
I am proud to tell others that I am

part of this organization.
I could just as well be working for a

different organization as long as the
type of work was similar
This organization really inspires the

very best in me in the way of job
performance
It would take very little changes in

my present circumstances to cause
me to leave this organization
10 I am extremely glad that I choose

this organization to work for over
others ,I was considering at the
time I joined
11 There is too much to be gained by
sticking
to
this
organization
indefinitely.
300
12 I find it easy to agree with this

organizations policies on important
matters relating to its Employees
13 I really care about the fate of this
organization.
14 For me, this is the best of all
possible organizations for which to
work.
15 Deciding
to
work
for
this
organization was a right decision

on my part.
301
PART-3
Leadership Styles
No of years working with the current Manager:
Age of Manager:
Educational qualification of Manager:
Gender of Manager:
This questionnaire is to describe the leadership style of your Head of Function
(or the person you report to), as you perceive/observe it. Please answer all
items on this sheet. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know
the answer, leave the answer blank. Please answer this question
anonymously.
Thirty descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how
frequently each statement fits the person you are describing. Use the
following rating scale by circling your desired option for rating. If answering
by way of e-mail, then kindly rate your answer by stating the number
you prefer to rate your immediate leader to whom you report, for e.g.,
4 under your rating column and state his/her designation in the blank
space provided in the table given below:
Not at all
Once in a
Sometimes
Fairly often
while
0
Frequently, if
not always
302
Leadership style observed by you:
Your designation
Your
rating
Instil pride in me for being associated with 0
him/her
2
Go beyond self-interest for the good of the

group
Act in ways that build others respect for

him/her
Display a sense of power and confidence
Talk about his/her most important values

and beliefs
Specify the importance of having a strong

sense of purpose
Consider
the
moral
and
ethical
consequences of decisions
8
Emphasize the importance of having a

collective sense of mission
Talks optimistically about the future
303
10 Talks enthusiastically about what needs to

be accomplished
12 Express confidence that goals will be
achieved
13 Seeks different perspectives when solving
problem
14 Suggest new ways of looking at how to
complete assignments
15 Spend time mentoring and coaching subordinates
16 Treat each team member as an individual
rather than just as a member of the group
17 Consider each person as having different
needs, abilities and aspirations from others
18 Help each person in the team to develop
their strengths
19 Discuss in specific terms who is responsible
for achieving performance targets
20 Make clear what one can expect to receive
when performance goals are achieved
304
21 Express satisfaction when expectations are

met
22 Focus attention on irregularities, mistakes,
exception and deviations from standards
23 Concentrate his/her full attention on dealing
with complaints and failures
24 Direct his/her attention towards failures to
meet standards
25 Fail to interfere until problems become
serious
26 Wait for things to go wrong before taking
action
27 Avoid getting involved when important
issues arise
He/she is absent when needed
29 Avoid making decisions
30 Delay responding to urgent questions
305
PART-4
Work Motivation
Your job .
You are being asked to participate in a survey to provide the Researcher with
information about how you feel about your job. Please indicate the extent of
your agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling a number
from 1 to 7.
If answering by way of e-mail then kindly RATE your answer by
choosing from 1-7 ,any number as per your rating, for e.g., 3 under the
column Rate. Please do not put your name on this questionnaire.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and confidentially is assured. No
individual data will be reported.
1
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly
disagree
agree
Agree
Disagree
Work Motivation Scale : Your job

1
Rate
Has managers and leaders who

are helpful and fair
Gives you status and prestige
Provides
satisfactory
material
306
rewards
4
Allows you to reach and develop

your full potential
Means working in pleasant and

helpful environment
Is a secure one
Provides good physical working

conditions
Is a challenging and exciting job
Is one where your good work and

hard efforts are appreciated
10 Taken all round and considering

all its aspects, is a very good one
307
ANNEXURE-II
Tables and Graphs
308
ANNEXURE-II
Tables and Graphs
Frequency Tables for Pilot Study
Table 5.3.1(i) : Frequency distribution by Age Group (in years)
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
21-30
12
24.0
24.0
24.0
31-40
21
42.0
42.0
66.0
41-50
14
28.0
28.0
94.0
> 50
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Table 5.3.1(ii) : Frequency distribution by Education

Frequency
Valid
BSc / BE /
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME / MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
Total
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
12
24.0
24.0
24.0
16
32.0
32.0
56.0
22
44.0
44.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
309
Table 5.3.1(iii) : Frequency distribution by Marital Status

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Married
41
82.0
82.0
82.0
Single
18.0
18.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Table 5.3.1(iv) : Frequency distribution by Occupation

Frequency
Valid
Operational
Executive
Middle
Manager
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
11
22.0
22.0
22.0
20
40.0
40.0
62.0
13
26.0
26.0
88.0
12.0
12.0
100.0
50
100.0
100.0
Table 5.3.1(v) : Frequency distribution by Compensation (Monthly gross)

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2 lac and
above
2.0
2.0
2.0
1- 1.99 lac
18
36.0
36.0
38.0
51- 99k
21
42.0
42.0
80.0
35-50k
10
20.0
20.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
310
Table 5.3.1(vi) : Frequency distribution by Length of Service

Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
0-10
13
26.0
26.0
26.0
11-20
29
58.0
58.0
84.0
21-30
10.0
10.0
94.0
> 30
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
Table 5.3.1(vii) : Frequency distribution by Gender

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
41
82.0
82.0
82.0
Female
18.0
18.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Table 5.3.1(viii) : Frequency distribution by Internal Promotion

Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
16.0
16.0
20.0
311
10.0
10.0
30.0
10
20.0
20.0
50.0
2.0
2.0
52.0
18.0
18.0
70.0
4.0
4.0
74.0
8.0
8.0
82.0
11
2.0
2.0
84.0
NA
16.0
16.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Valid
Qualifications of Manager
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
BSc / BE /
BCom / BA
6.0
6.0
6.0
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME / MCA
6.0
6.0
12.0
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
43
86.0
86.0
98.0
Doctorate
2.0
2.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
Gender
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
47
94.0
94.0
94.0
Female
6.0
6.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
100.0
312
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Dev.
Age
50
24
53
38.04
8.405
Length of Service
50
.00
36.00
14.2490
9.13018
Years of working
with current
Manager
50
.00
8.00
3.1300
1.78088
Age of Manager
50
35
57
45.50
6.072
Table 5.4(i) : Reliability Statistics : Leadership style and Employee

Commitment
Cronbach's Alpha

Standardized Items
0.862
0.891
29
Reliability Statistics for Employee Commitment

Cronbach's Alpha

Standardized Items
0.713
0.806
15
Table 5.4(ii) : Correlation of Transformational, Transactional and Laissez

faire styles with Employee Commitment
313
(0-4)
Total Score (1-7)
Employee Commitment

**
**
.485
.395
-.398
.000
.005
.004
50
50
50
.845
-.732
.000
.000
50
50
-.496
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
50
Pearson
**
.485
**
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
50
Pearson
50
**
**
.395
.845
.005
.000
50
50
**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
**
Score (1-7)

Pearson
**
.000
50
**
50
**
-.398
-.732
-.496
.004
.000
.000
50
50
50
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
50

314

Group Statistics
Gender
Employee
Commitment
Total Score
(15 - 105)
Leadership
Style Total
Score
(0 116)
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
41
78.3171
3.65677
.57109
73.0000
6.48074
2.16025
Male
41
81.3902
10.92904
1.70683
Female
77.5556
11.18158
3.72719
Male
Female
Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
Df
Sig. (2-tailed)
2.380
9.148
.041
.949
48
.347
-.426
48
.672
Employee Commitment Total Score (15 105)
Leadership Style Total Score
(0 - 116)
(10 - 70)
Table 5.4(iii) : Reliability Statistics of Leadership styles and Work

Motivation
Reliability Statistics for Work Motivation Scale
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
Items
.834
.834
10
315

Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
Items
.862
.891
29
Table 5.4(iv) : Correlation of Transformational, Transactional and

Laissez faire styles with Work Motivation
Pearson
Correlation
.277
Sig. (2tailed)
.051
Laissez Fairre Style

(0-4)
Transactional Style
(0-4)
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Work Motivation
Total Score (1-7)
1
.602**
.329*
-.585**
.000
.020
.000
50
50
50
Pearson
Correlation
.485**
.602**
.845**
-.732**
Sig. (2tailed)
.000
.000
.000
.000
50
50
50
50
50
.395**
.329*
.845**
-.496**
.005
.020
.000
50
50
50
50
50
-.585**
-.732**
-.496**
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
Fair
Pearson
Correlation
re
-.398**
4)
50
(0-
50
Styl
Total Score (1-7)

Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
sse
Lai
Transactional
Transformational
Work Motivation
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
.000
316
Sig. (2tailed)
N
.004
.000
.000
.000
50
50
50
50
50
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Main Research Study

Frequency Distribution of Demographic Factors
Table 5.6(i) : Frequency distribution and percentages of the respondents
by Age.
Age
(in
Frequency
Percent
Years)
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
20-29
74
22.7
22.7
22.7
30-39
82
25.2
25.2
47.9
40-49
130
39.9
39.9
87.7
> = 50
40
12.3
12.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
Education
Table 5.6(ii) Frequency distribution of the respondents by Education.
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
317
BSc / BE /
82
25.2
25.2
25.2
78
23.9
23.9
49.1
166
50.9
50.9
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
BCom / BA
MA / MCom /
MSc / ME /
Valid
MCA
Master
Degree
MBA / MMS
Total
Table 5.6(iii) Frequency distribution of respondents by Marital status.

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Married
258
79.1
79.1
79.1
Single
68
20.9
20.9
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Occupational Status
Table 5.6(iv) Frequency distribution of respondents by Occupation
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
318
Operational
75
23.0
23.0
23.0
154
47.2
47.2
70.2
69
21.2
21.2
91.4
28
8.6
8.6
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
Executive
Middle
Manager
Valid
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
Table 5.6 (v) : Frequency distribution of respondents by Compensation.

Gross Monthly Salary (INR)
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
2,00,000
17
5.2
5.2
5.2
121
37.1
37.1
42.3
128
39.3
39.3
81.6
and Above
1,00,0001,99,000
Valid
51,00099,000
319
35,00060
18.4
18.4
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
50,000
Total
Table 5.6(vi) Frequency distribution by Length of Service

Length of
Frequency
Percent
Service
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
(Years)
< 5 Years
66
20.2
20.2
20.2
5-10
34
10.4
10.4
30.7
11-15
95
29.1
29.1
59.8
16-20
82
25.2
25.2
85.0
21-25
1.5
1.5
86.5
26-30
25
7.7
7.7
94.2
> 30
19
5.8
5.8
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
320
Table 5.6(vii) shows frequency distribution of respondents by Gender.

Gender of Employee
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
Male
250
76.7
76.7
76.7
Female
76
23.3
23.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Table 5.6(viii) shows frequency distribution by internal promotion

Promoted Span (Years)
In no of Years
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
0-2
76
23.3
23.3
23.3
3-6
160
49.1
49.1
72.4
7-10
33
10.1
10.1
82.5
> 10
1.5
1.5
84.0
52
16.0
16.0
100.0
326
100.0
100.0
Valid
Not
Promoted/Not
Applicable
Total
321
Table 5.7.1 (i) : Reliability Transformational Style

Cronbach's Alpha

Standardized Items
.958
.959
N of Items
15
.827
15.954
.024
N of Items
.882
Variance
Maximum
.055
Maximum /
Minimum
Minimum
.602
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
15
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS5
LS6
LS7
LS8
LS9
LS13
LS14
LS15
LS16
LS17
LS18
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
44.55
44.40
44.54
44.21
44.28
44.34
44.24
44.35
44.54
44.33
44.44
44.60
44.21
44.27
44.58
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
92.402
93.588
91.031
104.828
95.680
98.015
93.840
95.403
96.495
96.891
97.417
95.546
96.824
95.187
97.524
Corrected
Item - Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.845
.793
.900
.364
.744
.756
.885
.794
.765
.706
.725
.760
.795
.836
.741
.861
.787
.900
.612
.801
.776
.869
.762
.739
.766
.778
.805
.810
.884
.875
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.954
.956
.953
.962
.957
.956
.954
.956
.956
.957
.957
.956
.956
.955
.957
322
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.940
8a
.889
7b
15
.938
.968
.968
.951
Total N of Items
Equal Length
Unequal Length
a. The items are: LS1, LS3, LS5, LS7, LS9, LS14, LS16, LS18
b. The items are: LS2, LS4, LS6, LS8, LS13, LS15, LS17.
Transformational style in the MLQ instrument to be 0.959, which is very good.
Table 5.7.1 (ii) : Reliability Transactional Style
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based

on Standardized Items
N of Items
.869
.876
.736
N of Items
.820
Variance
Maximum
.084
Maximum /
Minimum
Minimum
.468
Range
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
9.780
.030
Scale
Scale
Corrected
Squared
Cronbach's
323
Mean if
Item
Deleted
LS10
22.07
LS12
22.25
LS19
22.44
LS20
22.47
LS21
22.20
LS22
22.26
LS23
22.23
LS24
22.66
Variance
if Item
Deleted
20.020
20.972
18.764
19.432
18.134
19.418
19.207
19.899
Item-Total
Correlation
Multiple
Correlation
.638
.573
.700
.682
.774
.655
.635
.411
.641
.567
.621
.654
.676
.722
.719
.355
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.852
.859
.844
.847
.835
.849
.852
.883
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.827
4a
.687
4b
8
.782
.878
.878
.873
Total N of Items
Equal Length
Unequal Length
Table 5.7.1 (iii) : Reliability Laissez faire Style

Cronbach's Alpha
.870

Standardized Items
.885
N of Items
6
Inter-Item
Correlations
.561
.153
.798
.645
5.223
.039
N of Items
Variance
Maximum /
Minimum
Range
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
324
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
LS25
4.86
LS26
5.20
LS27
5.42
LS28
5.62
LS29
5.49
LS30
5.59
Scale
Variance
if Item
Deleted
17.871
15.805
15.697
18.913
16.109
18.342
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.398
.806
.786
.687
.852
.639
.357
.724
.737
.557
.795
.657
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.909
.822
.826
.851
.816
.854
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
.726
3a
.785
3b
6
.831
.907
.907
.899
Total N of Items
Equal Length
Unequal Length
a. The items are: LS25, LS27, LS29
b. The items are: LS26, LS28, LS30
Table 5.7.1(iv) : Reliability Work Motivation

.672
.787
-5.840
10
.043
N of Items
Maximum
-.115
N of Items
Variance
Minimum
.370
Maximum
/ Minimum
Mean
Inter-Item
Correlations
.853

Standardized Items
.854
Range
Cronbach's Alpha
10
325
WMS1
WMS2
WMS3
WMS4
WMS5
WMS6
WMS7
WMS8
Scale
Mean if
Item
Deleted
48.72
48.60
49.50
49.04
48.46
48.83
48.89
48.64
Scale
Variance if
Item
Deleted
40.603
39.219
39.734
40.740
42.772
45.558
44.538
40.409
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
.690
.765
.603
.705
.482
.259
.320
.608
.626
.726
.639
.624
.576
.478
.335
.644
Cronbach's
Alpha if
Item
Deleted
.828
.820
.835
.827
.845
.864
.859
.834
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
Total N of Items
.649
5a
.762
5b
10
.858
Equal Length
Unequal Length
.924
.924
.921
a. The items are: WMS1, WMS3, WMS5, WMS7, WMS9

b. The items are: WMS2, WMS4, WMS6, WMS8, WMS10
Table 5.7.1(v) : Reliability Organisational Commitment

Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
Standardized Items
.796
.850
15
326
.696
.913
-3.201
N of Items
Variance
Minimum
Maximum /
Range
Minimum
-.217
Maximum
Mean
Correlations
Inter-Item
.274
.056
15
Scale Mean
Scale
Corrected
Squared
Cronbach's
if Item
Variance if
Item-Total
Multiple
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Item Deleted
Correlation
Correlation
Deleted
ECQ1
77.66
87.703
.301
.543
.793
ECQ2
77.94
81.929
.681
.754
.774
rECQ3
77.81
74.704
.632
.670
.765
ECQ4
79.27
83.679
.122
.398
.823
ECQ5
78.37
77.783
.676
.628
.767
ECQ6
77.76
82.486
.621
.576
.777
rECQ7
79.57
84.886
.286
.660
.793
ECQ8
78.75
73.737
.573
.785
.769
rECQ9
79.16
83.232
.175
.598
.812
ECQ10
78.08
80.864
.512
.729
.778
ECQ11
79.05
89.930
-.018
.436
.825
ECQ12
78.63
80.130
.510
.690
.778
ECQ13
77.47
83.155
.527
.566
.780
ECQ14
78.40
79.448
.697
.696
.769
ECQ15
78.21
75.089
.732
.839
.760
Part 1
Cronbach's Alpha
Part 2
Value
N of Items
Value
N of Items
Total N of Items
Equal Length
Unequal Length
.602
8a
.694
7b
15
.712
.832
.832
.832
327
a. The items are: ECQ1, rECQ3, ECQ5, rECQ7, rECQ9, ECQ11, ECQ13,
ECQ15
b. The items are: ECQ2, ECQ4, ECQ6, ECQ8, ECQ10, ECQ12, ECQ14
Table 5.7.1(vi): Inter correlations among the Leadership Styles and a)

Employee Commitment Measure and b) Work Motivation
Correlations
Employee
Commitment
Total
Score (1-7)
Score (1-7)
Pearson
**
**
.313
.555
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Builds Trust
Pearson
Acts with Integrity
**
.660
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Inspires Others
**
.301
**
**
.335
.616
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
.400
**
.563
328
Encourages
Correlation
Innovation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Pearson
**
**
.268
.430
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Thinking
Pearson
Coaches People
**
**
.273
.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
.116
.189
Sig. (1-tailed)
.018
.000
326
326
Correlation
Rewards
Pearson
Achievement
**
.316
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
.357
Contingent
**
.237
**
.413
Correlation
329
Rewards
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Pearson
**
**
.411
.449
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Monitors Mistakes
Pearson
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
Correlation
Avoids
Involvement

Pearson
**
**
(0-4)
Laissez Faire Style
(0-4)
Transactional Style
Style (0-4)
Transformational
Correlations
**
.918
.736
-.565
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Builds
Trust
Pearson
**
.827
**
.562
**
-.570
Acts
330
Correlation
with
Integrity
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Pearson
Inspires
Others
Innovation
**
**
.746
-.546
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Encourages
**
.919
**
**
**
.832
.775
-.435
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
**
.925
.806
-.623
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Thinking
Pearson
Coaches
**
**
**
.938
.813
-.626
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
People
Pearson
**
.571
**
.764
**
-.234
Correlation
Rewards
331
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Pearson
**
**
**
.782
.833
-.486
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Achievement
Pearson
**
**
**
.725
.842
-.338
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Contingent
Rewards
Pearson
Monitors
Mistakes
**
involvement
**
.815
-.317
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Avoids
**
.634
**
**
**
-.630
-.447
1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
Correlation

Correlations
332
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
Score (1-7)
Pearson
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Style (0-4)
**
.600
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
Transactional
**
.342
**
**
.373
.445
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Correlation
Pearson
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
Correlation
Laissez faire
Style (0-4)
Table 5.7.1(vii): Regression Analysis Leadership Style on Work

Motivation
Variables Entered / Removeda
Model
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
Method
333
Acts with
.
Integrity
Monitors
.
Mistakes

3
Rewards
.

4
Thinking
.
Avoids
.
Involvement
Encourages

.
Innovation
Inspires Others

.

8
Builds Trust
.
Change Statistics
ate
Estim
of the
Error
e
Std.
Squar
Squar
Adjust
e
ed R
Rl
Mode
Model Summary
334
Sig. F Change
.434
.53460
.436
250.479
324
.000
.498
.495
.50533
.062
39.616
323
.000
.539
.535
.48460
.042
29.230
322
.000
.559
.554
.47487
.020
14.328
321
.000
.764
.584
.577
.46203
.025
19.083
320
.000
.604
.597
.45147
.020
16.144
319
.000
.609
.601
.44915
.005
4.315
318
.039
.621
.611
.44320
.011
9.597
317
.002
.660a
.705
.734
.748
.777
.781
.788
df1
F Change
df2
R Square Change
.436
i. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity

j. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes
k. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards
l. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Thinking
m. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
n. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
o. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
335
p. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Builds Trust
ANOVAa
Sum
Model
of
Df
Squares
Mean
Sig.
250.479
.000
159.974
.000
125.714
.000
101.770
.000
89.819
.000
Square
Regression
71.585
71.585
Residual
92.597
324
.286
Total
164.182
325
Regression
81.702
40.851
Residual
82.481
323
.255
Total
164.182
325
Regression
88.566
29.522
Residual
75.617
322
.235
Total
164.182
325
Regression
91.797
22.949
Residual
72.386
321
.226
Total
164.182
325
Regression
95.871
19.174
Residual
68.312
320
.213
336
Total
164.182
325
Regression
99.161
16.527
Residual
65.021
319
.204
Total
164.182
325
Regression
100.032
14.290
Residual
64.151
318
.202
Total
164.182
325
Regression
101.917
12.740
Residual
62.266
317
.196
Total
164.182
325
81.082
.000
70.837
.000
64.858
.000
j. Dependent Variable: Work Motivation Total Score (1-7)

k. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity
l. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes
m. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards
n. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
Thinking
o. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
p. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
q. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,
337
r. Predictors: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors Mistakes, Rewards,

Builds Trust
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Std.
Sig.
40.045
.000
15.827
.000
26.356
.000
Beta
Error
(Constant)
3.941
.098
.469
.030
3.384
.128
.409
.030
.575
13.800
.000
.239
.038
.262
6.294
.000
3.634
.131
27.634
.000
.469
.031
.660
15.371
.000
.303
.038
.332
7.908
.000
1
Acts with
.660
Integrity
(Constant)
Acts with
Integrity
2
Monitors
Mistakes
(Constant)
Acts with
3
Integrity
Monitors
Mistakes
338
Rewards
-.210
.039
-.240
-5.406
.000
28.453
.000
(Constant)
3.696
.130
Acts with Integrity
.560
.038
.787
14.607
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.359
.040
.393
8.895
.000
Rewards
-.162
.040
-.185
-4.035
.000
Thinking
-.212
.056
-.238
-3.785
.000
(Constant)
4.243
.178
23.857
.000
Acts with Integrity
.519
.038
.731
13.528
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.352
.039
.386
8.957
.000
Rewards
-.124
.040
-.142
-3.110
.002
Thinking
-.311
.059
-.350
-5.273
.000
Avoids Involvement
-.184
.042
-.212
-4.368
.000
(Constant)
4.227
.174
24.320
.000
Acts with Integrity
.482
.039
.679
12.486
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.213
.052
.234
4.123
.000
Rewards
-.099
.040
-.113
-2.501
.013
Thinking
-.401
.062
-.452
-6.489
.000
339
Avoids Involvement
-.199
.041
-.228
-4.805
.000
.249
.062
.272
4.018
.000
(Constant)
4.130
.179
23.040
.000
Acts with Integrity
.426
.047
.599
9.058
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.182
.054
.199
3.393
.001
Rewards
-.102
.039
-.117
-2.594
.010
Thinking
-.442
.065
-.498
-6.846
.000
Avoids Involvement
-.201
.041
-.230
-4.877
.000
.232
.062
.252
3.715
.000
Inspires Others
.178
.085
.167
2.077
.039
(Constant)
3.863
.197
19.633
.000
Acts with Integrity
.491
.051
.691
9.641
.000
Monitors Mistakes
.204
.053
.223
3.818
.000
Rewards
-.098
.039
-.113
-2.531
.012
Thinking
-.388
.066
-.437
-5.870
.000
Avoids Involvement
-.200
.041
-.230
-4.922
.000
.238
.062
.259
3.868
.000
340
Inspires Others
.297
.093
.280
3.199
.002
Builds Trust
-.196
.063
-.287
-3.098
.002

Excluded Variablesa
Model
Beta In
Sig.
Partial
Correlation
Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance
.019b
.247
.805
.014
.307
.241b
3.489
.001
.191
.354
.280b
5.833
.000
.309
.684
-.097b
-1.620
.106
-.090
.479
.060b
1.021
.308
.057
.496
Rewards
-.132b
-2.865
.004
-.157
.801
Achievement
-.118b
-2.287
.023
-.126
.648
.093b
1.917
.056
.106
.727
.262b
6.294
.000
.331
.895
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
1
Contingent
Rewards
Monitors
341
Mistakes
Avoids
-.181b
-3.643
.000
-.199
.676
-.318c
-3.832
.000
-.209
.217
-.009c
-.114
.909
-.006
.230
.130c
1.856
.064
.103
.315
-.319c
-5.215
.000
-.279
.385
-.172c
-2.640
.009
-.146
.359
Rewards
-.240c
-5.406
.000
-.288
.725
Achievement
-.229c
-4.595
.000
-.248
.591
-.093c
-1.693
.091
-.094
.511
-.134c
-2.778
.006
-.153
.656
-.318c
-3.832
.000
-.209
.217
-.009c
-.114
.909
-.006
.230
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
2
Thinking
Coaches
People
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
342
Encourages
.130c
1.856
.064
.103
.315
-.319c
-5.215
.000
-.279
.385
-.172c
-2.640
.009
-.146
.359
Rewards
-.240c
-5.406
.000
-.288
.725
Achievement
-.229c
-4.595
.000
-.248
.591
-.093c
-1.693
.091
-.094
.511
-.134c
-2.778
.006
-.153
.656
-.248d
-3.041
.003
-.167
.210
.056d
.698
.486
.039
.225
.122d
1.811
.071
.101
.315
-.238d
-3.785
.000
-.207
.347
-.085d
-1.304
.193
-.073
.333
-.117d
-1.981
.048
-.110
.408
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches
People
Achievement
343
Contingent
.097d
1.524
.129
.085
.351
-.113d
-2.433
.016
-.135
.651
-.141e
-1.576
.116
-.088
.170
.196e
2.335
.020
.129
.193
.243e
3.493
.001
.192
.274
.125e
1.482
.139
.083
.193
.084e
1.009
.314
.056
.198
.132e
2.108
.036
.117
.344
-.212e
-4.368
.000
-.237
.555
-.132f
-1.518
.130
-.085
.170
.209f
2.561
.011
.142
.193
.272f
4.018
.000
.219
.272
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Coaches
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Avoids
Involvement
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
344
Coaches
.056f
.669
.504
.037
.185
.082f
1.018
.309
.057
.198
.147f
2.406
.017
.133
.343
-.164g
-1.920
.056
-.107
.169
.167g
2.077
.039
.116
.189
-.031g
-.369
.712
-.021
.173
.072g
.911
.363
.051
.198
.097g
1.574
.117
.088
.326
-.287h
-3.098
.002
-.171
.140
-.002h
-.025
.980
-.001
.168
.075h
.952
.342
.053
.198
.116h
1.880
.061
.105
.320
.021i
.242
.809
.014
.167
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Builds Trust
Inspires
Others
Coaches
7
People
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Builds Trust
Coaches
People
8
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Coaches
345
People
Achievement
Contingent
.068i
.868
.386
.049
.198
.110i
1.804
.072
.101
.319
Rewards

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes
d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes, Rewards
e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking
f. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes, Rewards, Thinking, Avoids Involvement
g. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes,
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Innovation
h. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors
Mistakes,
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Innovation, Inspires Others

i.
Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Acts with Integrity, Monitors

Mistakes,
Rewards,
Thinking,
Avoids
Involvement,
Encourages
Innovation, Inspires Others, Builds Trust
346
Table 5.7.2(i): ANOVA By Length of service

Descriptives (in Years)
Mean
Std.
Std.
95% Confidence
Dev.
Error
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
<5
66
5.0273
.47573
.05856
4.9103
5.1442
3.93
5.60
5-10
34
5.2196
.76656
.13146
4.9521
5.4871
4.07
6.07
11-15
95
5.9249
.53803
.05520
5.8153
6.0345
4.93
6.67
16-20
82
5.7252
.47539
.05250
5.6207
5.8297
4.60
6.53
> 20
49
5.8000
.52705
.07529
5.6486
5.9514
4.13
6.47
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
32
Total
6
<5
66
5.5091
.63190
.07778
5.3537
5.6644
4.40
6.20
5-10
34
4.8735
.66756
.11449
4.6406
5.1065
4.10
6.20
11-15
95
5.6347
.76001
.07798
5.4799
5.7896
3.20
6.70
16-20
82
5.4061
.47150
.05207
5.3025
5.5097
4.70
7.00
> 20
49
5.3327
.86347
.12335
5.0846
5.5807
4.10
6.20
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
32
Total
3.20
7.00
347
ANOVA
Sum of
Df
Mean
Squares
Employee
Between
Commitment
Groups
Sig.
34.398
.000
8.325
.000
Square
39.843
9.961
92.952
321
.290
132.795
325
15.432
3.858
148.751
321
.463
164.182
325
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Work
Between
Motivation
Groups
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Sig.
Std. Error
Difference (I-J)
Mean
Service
(J) Length of
Service (Years)
(I) Length of
Variable
Dependent
Games-Howell
348
5-10
-.19234
.14392
.670
-.6007
.2161
11-15
-.89764
.08048
.000
-1.1199
-.6754
16-20
-.69793
.07865
.000
-.9153
-.4806
> 20
-.77273
.09538
.000
-1.0379
-.5076
<5
.19234
.14392
.670
-.2161
.6007
11-15
-.70530
.14258
.000
-1.1104
-.3002
16-20
-.50560
.14156
.007
-.9082
-.1030
> 20
-.58039
.15150
.003
-1.0079
-.1529
<5
.89764
.08048
.000
.6754
1.1199
5-10
.70530
.14258
.000
.3002
1.1104
<5
Employee
5-10
Commitment
Total Score
(1-7)
11-15
16-20
16-20
.19971
.07618
.071
-.0103
.4097
> 20
.12491
.09336
.668
-.1345
.3843
<5
.69793
.07865
.000
.4806
.9153
5-10
.50560
.14156
.007
.1030
.9082
11-15
-.19971
.07618
.071
-.4097
.0103
> 20
-.07480
.09179
.925
-.3302
.1806
.09538
.000
.5076
1.0379
.58039
.15150
.003
.1529
1.0079
-.12491
.09336
.668
-.3843
.1345
<5
.77273
5-10
11-15
349
> 20
16-20
.07480
.09179
.925
-.1806
.3302
5-10
.63556
.13841
.000
.2470
1.0242
11-15
-.12565
.11014
.785
-.4297
.1784
16-20
.10299
.09360
.806
-.1563
.3623
> 20
.17644
.14583
.746
-.2301
.5830
<5
-.63556
.13841
.000
-1.0242
-.2470
11-15
-.76121
.13852
.000
-1.1497
-.3727
16-20
-.53257
.12577
.001
-.8892
-.1759
> 20
-.45912
.16829
.059
-.9288
.0106
<5
.12565
.11014
.785
-.1784
.4297
5-10
.76121
.13852
.000
.3727
1.1497
16-20
.22864
.09376
.111
-.0301
.4873
> 20
.30208
.14593
.242
-.1045
.7086
<5
-.10299
.09360
.806
-.3623
.1563
5-10
.53257
.12577
.001
.1759
.8892
11-15
-.22864
.09376
.111
-.4873
.0301
> 20
.07344
.13389
.982
-.3022
.4491
<5
-.17644
.14583
.746
-.5830
.2301
5-10
.45912
.16829
.059
-.0106
.9288
< 5 Years
5-10
Work
11-15
Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
16-20
350
> 20
11-15
-.30208
.14593
.242
-.7086
.1045
16-20
-.07344
.13389
.982
-.4491
.3022

Table 5.7.2(ii): ANOVA By Age
Max
Mean
Bound
Min
Interval for
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
.50187
.05834
4.8684
5.1010
3.93
5.60
30-39
82
6.0211
.57577
.06358
5.8946
6.1476
4.27
6.67
40-49
130
5.6605
.51362
.04505
5.5714
5.7496
4.60
6.53
>= 50
40
5.6833
.51169
.08090
5.5197
5.8470
4.13
6.40
Total
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
5.4000
.68186
.07926
5.2420
5.5580
4.20
6.20
5.3549
.79910
.08825
5.1793
5.5305
3.20
6.70
74
82
(1-7)
Motivation
30-39
Total Score
Std. Error
4.9847
Std.
74
N
20-29
20-29
Work
Deviation
Mean
Descriptives
351
40-49
130
5.5731
.58200
.05104
5.4721
5.6741
4.70
7.00
>= 50
40
5.1500
.85485
.13516
4.8766
5.4234
4.10
6.10
Total
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
ANOVA
Sum
of
Df
Mean
Squares
Sig.
Square
Between Groups
43.314
14.438
Within Groups
89.481
322
.278
Total
132.795
325
6.324
2.108
Within Groups
157.859
322
.490
Total
164.182
325
51.956
.000
4.300
.005
Employee
Commitment
Total Score
(1-7)
Between Groups
Work
Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
Post Hoc Tests

Games-Howell
Confidence
Interval
.000
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-1.2606
7)
.08629
al
nt
30-39
95%
(1-
Error
re
Diff. (I-J)
Sig.
Sco
Group
Tot
Group
tme
Variable
mmi
Std.
Co
Mean
ee
(J) Age
ploy
(I) Age
Em
Dependent
-.8123
352
1.03645
20-29
.07371
.000
-.8673
-.4844
.09975
.000
-.9605
-.4368
40-49
-.67583
>= 50
-.69865
20-29
1.03645
.08629
.000
.8123
1.2606
40-49
.36063
.07792
.000
.1583
.5630
>= 50
.33780
.10290
.008
.0682
.6074
30-39
.07371
.000
.4844
.8673
-.36063
.07792
.000
-.5630
-.1583
-.02282
.09260
.995
-.2670
.2213
20-29
.69865*
.09975
.000
.4368
.9605
30-39
-.33780
.10290
.008
-.6074
-.0682
40-49
.02282
.09260
.995
-.2213
.2670
30-39
.04512
.11862
.981
-.2630
.3532
40-49
-.17308
.09428
.261
-.4184
.0722
>= 50
.25000
.15669
.388
-.1630
.6630
20-29
-.04512
.11862
.981
-.3532
.2630
40-49
-.21820
.10195
.146
-.4834
.0470
>= 50
.20488
.16142
.585
-.2195
.6293
20-29
.17308
.09428
.261
-.0722
.4184
20-29
.67583
30-393
>= 50
40-49
>= 50
20-29
30-39
353
40-49
>= 50
30-39
.21820
.10195
.146
-.0470
.4834
>= 50
.42308
.14448
.025
.0393
.8069
20-29
-.25000
.15669
.388
-.6630
.1630
30-39
-.20488
.16142
.585
-.6293
.2195
40-49
-.42308
.14448
.025
-.8069
-.0393

Table 5.7.2(iii) : ANOVA by Educational Qualification
Descriptives
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev.
Error
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
BSc /
BE /
82
5.4862
.61321
.06772
5.3514
5.6209
4.07
6.47
78
5.7812
.47639
.05394
5.6738
5.8886
4.93
6.40
BCom /
BA
MA /
MCom /
MSc /
ME /
MCA
354
Master
Degree
166
5.5723
.70114
.05442
5.4648
5.6797
3.93
6.67
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
82
5.6293
.52786
.05829
5.5133
5.7453
4.20
6.20
78
5.5487
.52860
.05985
5.4295
5.6679
4.70
6.30
166
5.2699
.82201
.06380
5.1439
5.3958
3.20
7.00
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
/ MBA /
MMS
Total
BSc / BE
/ BCom /
BA
MA /
MCom /
MSc /
ME /
MCA
Master
Degree
/ MBA /
MMS
Total
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Total Score (1-7)
Employee Commitment
Squares
Mean
Sig.
4.694
.010
Square
Between Groups
3.751
1.875
Within Groups
129.045
323
.400
Total
132.795
325
355
Score (1-7)
Between Groups
8.608
4.304
Within Groups
155.574
323
.482
Total
164.182
325
8.936
.000
Post Hoc Tests

BSc / BE / BCom /
-.29502
.08657
.002
-.4999
-.0901
-.08611
.08687
.583
-.2914
.1192
.29502
.08657
.002
.0901
.4999
.20891
.07662
.019
.0281
.3898
.08687
.583
-.1192
.2914
.07662
.019
-.3898
-.0281
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
Sig.
Std. Error
(I-J)
Mean Difference
Employee
(J) Education of
Employee
/ ME / MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
BA
/ MCA
Master Degree /
MBA / MMS
BSc / BE / BCom /
.08611
BA
MA / MCom / MSc
MMS
Variable
(I) Education of
MA / MCom / MSc
Dependent
Games-Howell
-.20891
/ ME / MCA
356
BSc / BE / BCom /
.08055
.08355
.601
-.1171
.2782
.08642
.000
.1555
.5633
-.08055
.08355
.601
-.2782
.1171
.08748
.005
.0724
.4853
/ ME / MCA
Master Degree /
.35939
MBA / MMS
BA
/ MCA
Master Degree /
.27884
MBA / MMS
BSc / BE / BCom /
-.35939
.08642
.000
-.5633
-.1555
-.27884
.08748
.005
-.4853
-.0724
BA
MA / MCom / MSc
MMS
ork Motivation Total Score (1-7)
MA / MCom / MSc
/ ME / MCA

Table 5.7.2(iv) : ANOVA by Occupational status
Oneway ANOVA
Descriptives

(1-7)
Mean
Std.
Std.
Dev.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
Operational
75
5.2276
.64915
.07496
5.0782
5.3769
4.13
6.47
154
5.5939
.65534
.05281
5.4896
5.6983
3.93
6.67
69
5.8860
.49614
.05973
5.7668
6.0052
4.60
6.40
Executive
Middle
manager
Senior
357
Manager
Senior
28
5.9333
.00000
.00000
5.9333
5.9333
5.93
5.93
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
75
5.5560
.68027
.07855
5.3995
5.7125
4.10
6.30
154
5.2792
.84022
.06771
5.1455
5.4130
3.20
7.00
69
5.6681
.43471
.05233
5.5637
5.7725
5.10
6.30
28
5.3000
.00000
.00000
5.3000
5.3000
5.30
5.30
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
Executive
Total
Operational
Executive
Middle
manager
Senior
Manager
Senior
Executive
Total
Work Motivation
Total Score (1-7)
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Between Groups
19.164
6.388
18.102
.000
Within Groups
113.632
322
.353
Total
132.795
325
Between Groups
9.074
3.025
6.279
.000
Within Groups
155.108
322
.482
Total
164.182
325
Post Hoc Tests

358
Middle Manager
Senior Manager
Bound
Interval
Confidence
Bound
Upper
95%
Lower
-.36638
.09169
.001
-.6046
-.1281
Senior Manager
-.65843
.09584
.000
-.9077
-.4092
Senior Executive
-.70578
.07496
.000
-.9028
-.5088
.09169
.001
.1281
.6046
.36638
Executive
Senior Manager
-.29205
.07973
.002
-.4989
-.0852
Senior Executive
-.33939
.05281
.000
-.4766
-.2022
Operational
.65843
.09584
.000
.4092
.9077
Middle manager
.29205
.07973
.002
.0852
.4989
Senior Executive
-.04734
.05973
.858
-.2047
.1100
.70578
.07496
.000
.5088
.9028
Middle manager
.33939
.05281
.000
.2022
.4766
Senior Manager
.04734
.05973
.858
-.1100
.2047
Executive
Operational
Senior Executive
Sig.
Middle Manager
Operational
Std. Error
(J) Occupation
Executive
(I) Occupation
Operational
Dependent Variable
Games-Howell
Executive
359
Confidence
Lower
Bound
.10370
.041
.0078
.5457
Senior Manager
-.11212
.09439
.636
-.3578
.1336
Senior Executive
.25600
.07855
.009
.0495
.4625
Middle Manager
Bound
Upper
Std. Error
-.27678
.10370
.041
-.5457
-.0078
Senior Manager
-.38890
.08557
.000
-.6105
-.1673
Senior Executive
-.02078
.06771
.990
-.1966
.1551
.11212
.09439
.636
-.1336
.3578
Executive
Operational
Senior Manager
Operational
Interval
95%
Sig.

.27678
(J) Occupation
Executive
(I) Occupation
Operational
Dependent Variable
Middle Manager
Executive
Middle manager
.38890
.08557
.000
.1673
.6105
Senior Executive
.36812
.05233
.000
.2303
.5059
.07855
.009
-.4625
-.0495
.06771
.990
-.1551
.1966
.05233
.000
-.5059
-.2303
Senior Executive
Operational
-.25600
Executive
Middle manager
.02078
Senior Manager
-.36812

Table 5.7.2(v): ANOVA by Monthly Compensation
Descriptives
360
INR Per Month
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Confidence
Dev
Error
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Min
Max
2,00,000
17
4.7059
.48020
.11646
4.4590
4.9528
4.13
5.33
121
5.4529
.68356
.06214
5.3299
5.5759
3.93
6.47
128
5.7281
.52810
.04668
5.6358
5.8205
4.60
6.40
60
5.8800
.49750
.06423
5.7515
6.0085
4.93
6.67
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
17
5.1059
.32494
.07881
4.9388
5.2730
4.60
5.50
121
5.4273
.79015
.07183
5.2851
5.5695
3.20
6.30
128
5.4086
.66830
.05907
5.2917
5.5255
4.10
6.30
60
5.5567
.68948
.08901
5.3786
5.7348
4.70
7.00
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
& Above
1,00,0001,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
2,00,000
Work Motivational Total Score (1-7)
& Above
1,00,0001,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
Total
ANOVA
361
Sum of
Df
Employee Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Between

Score (1-7)
Squares
Between
Mean
Sig.
22.501
.000
1.866
.135
Square
23.014
7.671
Within Groups
109.781
322
.341
Total
132.795
325
2.805
.935
Within Groups
161.377
322
.501
Total
164.182
325
Groups
Groups
Post Hoc Tests

Games-Howell
(I)
(J)
Mean
Std.
Variable
Monthly
Monthly
Diff (I-J)
Error
Salary
Salary
1,00,000-.74701
Sig
95% Confidence
Interval
.13201
.000
-1.1090
-.3850
1,99,000
Score (1-7)
Dependent
51,0002,00,000
& Above
-1.02224
.12547
.000
-1.3713
-.6732
-1.17412
.13300
.000
-1.5385
-.8098
99,000
35,00050,000
362
2,00,000
.13201
.000
.3850
1.1090
-.27523
.07772
.003
-.4764
-.0741
-.42711
.08937
.000
-.6592
-.1950
.12547
.000
.6732
1.3713
.07772
.003
.0741
.4764
-.15188
.07940
.228
-.3587
.0549
.13300
.000
.8098
1.5385
.08937
.000
.1950
.6592
.15188
.07940
.228
-.0549
.3587
.74701
& Above
1,00,000 1,99,000
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
2,00,000
1.02224
& Above
51,00,000-
51,000-
99,00,000
99,000
.27523
35,00050,000
2,00,000
1.17412
& Above
35,000
51,000.42711
50,000
99,000
35,000-
1,00,000-.32139
.10663
.021
-.6050
-.0378
-.30271
.09849
.020
-.5675
-.0380
-.45078
.11889
.002
-.7653
-.1362
1,99,000
(1-7)
50,000
2,00,000 &
Above
51,00099,000
35,00050,000
363
2,00,000
.10663
.021
.0378
.6050
.01868
.09300
.997
-.2220
.2593
-.12939
.11438
.671
-.4270
.1682
.09849
.020
.0380
.5675
-.01868
.09300
.997
-.2593
.2220
-.14807
.10683
.511
-.4267
.1305
.11889
.002
.1362
.7653
.12939
.11438
.671
-.1682
.4270
.14807
.10683
.511
-.1305
.4267
.32139
& Above
1,00,000-
51,000-
1,99,000
99,000
35,00050,000
2,00,000
.30271
& Above
51,000-
1,00,000-
99,000
1,99,000
35,00050,000
1,00,000.45078
1,99,000
35,000-
51,000-
50,000
99,000
51,00099,000

Table 5.7.2(vi): ANOVA by Length of Service
Descriptives
N
Mean
Std.
Std.
95%
Dev.
Error
Interval for Mean
Lower
Confidence
Min
Max
Upper
364

Bound
Bound
< 5 Years
66
5.0273
.47573
.05856
4.9103
5.1442
3.93
5.60
5-10
34
5.2196
.76656
.13146
4.9521
5.4871
4.07
6.07
11-15
95
5.9249
.53803
.05520
5.8153
6.0345
4.93
6.67
16-20
82
5.7252
.47539
.05250
5.6207
5.8297
4.60
6.53
> 20
49
5.8000
.52705
.07529
5.6486
5.9514
4.13
6.47
Total
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
< 5 Years
66
5.5091
.63190
.07778
5.3537
5.6644
4.40
6.20
5-10
34
4.8735
.66756
.11449
4.6406
5.1065
4.10
6.20
11-15
95
5.6347
.76001
.07798
5.4799
5.7896
3.20
6.70
16-20
82
5.4061
.47150
.05207
5.3025
5.5097
4.70
7.00
> 20
49
5.3327
.86347
.12335
5.0846
5.5807
4.10
6.20
Total
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Squares
Employee
Between
Commitment
Groups
39.843
Mean
Sig.
Square
9.961
34.398
.000
365
Total Score
(1-7)
Within
92.952
321
.290
132.795
325
15.432
3.858
148.751
321
.463
164.182
325
Groups
Total
Work
Between
Motivation
8.325
.000
Groups
Total Score
Within
(1-7)
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests
Games-Howell
Depend
(I) Length
(J) Length
Mean Diff.
Std.
ent
of Service
of Service
(I-J)
Error
Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
< 5 Years
(1-7)
Variable
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
5-10
-.19234
.14392
.670
-.6007
.2161
11-15
-.89764
.08048
.000
-1.1199
-.6754
16-20
-.69793
.07865
.000
-.9153
-.4806
> 20
-.77273
.09538
.000
-1.0379
-.5076
<5
.19234
.14392
.670
-.2161
.6007
11-15
-.70530
.14258
.000
-1.1104
-.3002
366
5-10
16-20
-.50560
.14156
.007
-.9082
-.1030
> 20
-.58039
.15150
.003
-1.0079
-.1529
<5
.89764
.08048
.000
.6754
1.1199
5-10
.70530
.14258
.000
.3002
1.1104
16-20
.19971
.07618
.071
-.0103
.4097
> 20
.12491
.09336
.668
-.1345
.3843
<5
.69793
.07865
.000
.4806
.9153
5-10
.50560
.14156
.007
.1030
.9082
11-15
-.19971
.07618
.071
-.4097
.0103
> 20
-.07480
.09179
.925
-.3302
.1806
<5
.77273
.09538
.000
.5076
1.0379
5-10
.58039
.15150
.003
.1529
1.0079
11-15
-.12491
.09336
.668
-.3843
.1345
16-20
.07480
.09179
.925
-.1806
.3302
5-10
.63556
.13841
.000
.2470
1.0242
11-15
-.12565
.11014
.785
-.4297
.1784
16-20
.10299
.09360
.806
-.1563
.3623
> 20
.17644
.14583
.746
-.2301
.5830
<5
-.63556
.13841
.000
-1.0242
-.2470
11-15
-.76121
.13852
.000
-1.1497
-.3727
16-20
-.53257
.12577
.001
-.8892
-.1759
11-15
16-20
> 20
<5
5-10
367
11-15
> 20
-.45912
.16829
.059
-.9288
.0106
<5
.12565
.11014
.785
-.1784
.4297
5-10
.76121
.13852
.000
.3727
1.1497
16-20
.22864
.09376
.111
-.0301
.4873
> 20
.30208
.14593
.242
-.1045
.7086
<5
-.10299
.09360
.806
-.3623
.1563
5-10
.53257
.12577
.001
.1759
.8892
11-15
-.22864
.09376
.111
-.4873
.0301
> 20
.07344
.13389
.982
-.3022
.4491
<5
-.17644
.14583
.746
-.5830
.2301
5-10
.45912
.16829
.059
-.0106
.9288
11-15
-.30208
.14593
.242
-.7086
.1045
16-20
-.07344
.13389
.982
-.4491
.3022
16-20
>20

Table 5.7.2(vii) : ANOVA by Internal Promotion
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Dev.
Error
Interval for Mean
Bound
Bound
5.4972
5.8730
7)
Upper
(1-
Lower
re
.09431
al
.82218
Sco
Std.
Tot
Std.
nt
5.6851
tme
mmi
76
Mean
Co
0-2
ee
ploy
Em
Years
Min
Max
3.93
6.53
368
5.7358
.56082
.04434
5.6483
5.8234
4.13
6.67
>7
38
5.6825
.28849
.04680
5.5876
5.7773
5.33
5.93
52
5.0013
.35998
.04992
4.9011
5.1015
4.13
5.47
Total
326
5.6006
.63922
.03540
5.5310
5.6703
3.93
6.67
0-2
76
5.3697
.68800
.07892
5.2125
5.5270
4.20
6.30
3-6
160
5.5594
.75087
.05936
5.4421
5.6766
3.20
7.00
>7
38
4.9368
.53647
.08703
4.7605
5.1132
4.10
5.60
52
5.4615
.56261
.07802
5.3049
5.6182
4.60
6.10
326
5.4270
.71076
.03937
5.3496
5.5044
3.20
7.00
Not Applicable
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
160
Not Promoted /
3-6
Total
ANOVA
Sum of
df
Employee Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Squares
Mean
Sig.
21.779
.000
Square
Between
22.401
7.467
110.395
322
.343
132.795
325
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
369

Score (1-7)
Between
12.245
4.082
151.938
322
.472
164.182
325
8.650
.000
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
Post Hoc Tests

Games-Howell
Depende
(I)
(J) Promoted
Mean
Std.
nt
Promoted
Span
Diff
Error
Variable
Span
Sig.
Interval
(I-J)
95% Confidence
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
3-6
-.05075
.10421
.962
-.3226
.2211
>7
.00263
.10528
1.000
-.2723
.2775
.10671
.000
.4054
.9622
0-2
.05075
.10421
.962
-.2211
.3226
>7
.05338
.06447
.841
-.1147
.2215
.06677
.000
.5609
.9082
0-2 years
-.00263
.10528
1.000
-.2775
.2723
3-6
-.05338
.06447
.841
-.2215
.1147
0-2 years
Not Promoted/
.68381
Not Applicable
3-6 years
Not Promoted/
.73455
Not Applicable
370
> 7 years
Not Promoted/
.68117
.06843
.000
.5019
.8604
Not Applicable
0-2 years
-.68381
.10671
.000
-.9622
-.4054
3-6
-.73455
.06677
.000
-.9082
-.5609
>7
-.68117
.06843
.000
-.8604
-.5019
3-6
-.18964
.09875
.224
-.4460
.0667
>7
.43289
.11748
.002
.1255
.7403
-.09180
.11097
.841
-.3809
.1973
0-2 years
.18964
.09875
.224
-.0667
.4460
>7
.62253
.10534
.000
.3458
.8993
.09784
.09804
.751
-.1577
.3534
Not
Promoted
/ NA
0-2 years
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
3-6
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
>7
0-2 years
-.43289
.11748
.002
-.7403
-.1255
3-6
-.62253
.10534
.000
-.8993
-.3458
-.52470
.11688
.000
-.8312
-.2182
Not Promoted /
Not Applicable
0-2 years
.09180
.11097
.841
-.1973
.3809
3-6
-.09784
.09804
.751
-.3534
.1577
>7
.52470
.11688
.000
.2182
.8312
Not
Promoted
/ NA
371
Table 5.7.3(i) : Mean Standard Deviation of all Variables

All in range of 0 to 4
Min
Max
Mean
Std. Dev.
Builds Trust
326
.00
4.00
3.0245
1.03746
Acts with Integrity
326
.00
4.00
3.1656
1.00008
Inspires Others
326
1.25
4.00
3.2163
.67026
326
1.50
4.00
3.1779
.77396
Thinking
326
.00
4.50
3.1702
.80058
Coaches People
326
.80
4.00
3.1620
.74074
Rewards
326
.00
4.00
3.0399
.81237
Achievement
326
.00
4.00
3.2577
.68118
Contingent Rewards
326
.00
4.00
3.3160
.91224
Monitors Mistakes
326
.33
4.00
3.1278
.77945
Avoids Involvement
326
.00
3.67
1.0726
.81703
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
326
3.93
6.67
5.6006
.63922
326
3.20
7.00
5.4270
.71076

Score (1-7)
372
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
326
1.13
4.00
3.1708
.69899
326
1.00
4.00
3.1890
.62471
326
.00
3.67
1.0726
.81703
Table 5.7.3 (ii) : Frequency Distribution of Employee Commitment Scale

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
3.93
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.07
1.2
1.2
2.5
4.13
1.5
1.5
4.0
4.27
1.2
1.2
5.2
4.40
1.2
1.2
6.4
4.60
2.5
2.5
8.9
4.80
1.2
1.2
10.1
4.93
26
8.0
8.0
18.1
5.00
1.2
1.2
19.3
5.07
15
4.6
4.6
23.9
373
5.13
10
3.1
3.1
27.0
5.20
1.2
1.2
28.2
5.27
1.5
1.5
29.8
5.33
30
9.2
9.2
39.0
5.40
2.8
2.8
41.7
5.47
1.2
1.2
42.9
5.60
10
3.1
3.1
46.0
5.67
2.8
2.8
48.8
5.80
2.5
2.5
51.2
5.87
10
3.1
3.1
54.3
5.93
61
18.7
18.7
73.0
6.00
1.2
1.2
74.2
6.07
19
5.8
5.8
80.1
6.20
1.5
1.5
81.6
6.27
1.2
1.2
82.8
6.33
1.5
1.5
84.4
6.40
39
12.0
12.0
96.3
6.47
1.2
1.2
97.5
6.53
1.2
1.2
98.8
Valid
374
6.67
1.2
1.2
Total
326
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 5.7.3 (iii): Frequency Distribution of Work Motivation Scale

Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
3.20
1.2
1.2
1.2
4.10
2.8
2.8
4.0
4.20
1.2
1.2
5.2
4.40
19
5.8
5.8
11.0
4.60
2.5
2.5
13.5
4.70
34
10.4
10.4
23.9
4.80
1.2
1.2
25.2
5.10
14
4.3
4.3
29.4
5.20
19
5.8
5.8
35.3
5.30
57
17.5
17.5
52.8
5.40
1.2
1.2
54.0
5.50
12
3.7
3.7
57.7
5.60
1.5
1.5
59.2
5.70
1.5
1.5
60.7
375
Valid
5.80
1.2
1.2
62.0
5.90
24
7.4
7.4
69.3
6.00
2.8
2.8
72.1
6.10
36
11.0
11.0
83.1
6.20
24
7.4
7.4
90.5
6.30
23
7.1
7.1
97.5
6.70
1.2
1.2
98.8
7.00
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Table 5.7.3(iv): Frequency Distribution of Transformational Leadership

Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.13
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.93
23
7.1
7.1
8.3
2.00
24
7.4
7.4
15.6
2.27
1.8
1.8
17.5
2.33
1.2
1.2
18.7
2.40
1.2
1.2
19.9
2.53
1.5
1.5
21.5
376
Valid
Valid
2.60
1.2
1.2
22.7
2.67
1.5
1.5
24.2
2.80
10
3.1
3.1
27.3
2.87
15
4.6
4.6
31.9
3.07
1.2
1.2
33.1
3.13
14
4.3
4.3
37.4
3.20
2.5
2.5
39.9
3.27
1.2
1.2
41.1
3.33
24
7.4
7.4
48.5
3.40
51
15.6
15.6
64.1
3.53
1.2
1.2
65.3
3.67
19
5.8
5.8
71.2
3.73
14
4.3
4.3
75.5
3.80
15
4.6
4.6
80.1
3.87
17
5.2
5.2
85.3
3.93
34
10.4
10.4
95.7
4.00
14
4.3
4.3
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Table 5.7.3(v): Frequency Distribution of Transactional Leadership Scale

377
Frequency
Valid
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1.00
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.25
1.2
1.2
2.5
1.38
1.2
1.2
3.7
1.75
1.2
1.2
4.9
1.88
.3
.3
5.2
2.38
10
3.1
3.1
8.3
2.50
2.8
2.8
11.0
2.63
39
12.0
12.0
23.0
2.75
10
3.1
3.1
26.1
2.88
19
5.8
5.8
31.9
3.00
17
5.2
5.2
37.1
3.13
13
4.0
4.0
41.1
3.25
10
3.1
3.1
44.2
3.38
14
4.3
4.3
48.5
3.50
71
21.8
21.8
70.2
3.63
32
9.8
9.8
80.1
3.75
32
9.8
9.8
89.9
3.88
19
5.8
5.8
95.7
4.00
14
4.3
4.3
100.0
378
Total
326
100.0
100.0
Table 5.7.3 (vi): Frequency Distribution of Laissez faire Leadership Scale

Frequency
Valid
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
.00
40
12.3
12.3
12.3
.17
1.2
1.2
13.5
.33
14
4.3
4.3
17.8
.50
15
4.6
4.6
22.4
.67
60
18.4
18.4
40.8
.83
25
7.7
7.7
48.5
1.00
61
18.7
18.7
67.2
1.17
2.8
2.8
69.9
1.33
23
7.1
7.1
77.0
1.50
10
3.1
3.1
80.1
1.83
20
6.1
6.1
86.2
2.00
1.2
1.2
87.4
2.33
1.2
1.2
88.7
2.50
10
3.1
3.1
91.7
2.83
23
7.1
7.1
98.8
379
3.67
1.2
1.2
100.0
Total
326
100.0
100.0
(0-4)
Laissez Faire Style
(0-4)
Transactional Style
(0-4)
(1-7)
(1-7)
Statistics
326
326
326
326
326
Mean
5.6006
5.4270
3.1708
3.1890
1.0726
Median
5.8000
5.3000
3.4000
3.5000
1.0000
Std. Deviation
.63922
.71076
.69899
.62471
.81703
Minimum
3.93
3.20
1.13
1.00
.00
Maximum
6.67
7.00
4.00
4.00
3.67
25
5.1333
4.8000
2.8000
2.7500
.6667
50
5.8000
5.3000
3.4000
3.5000
1.0000
75
6.0667
6.1000
3.7333
3.6250
1.3333
Percentiles
380
Correlations
Employee
Commitment
Total Score (1-7)
Builds Trust
Acts with Integrity
Inspires Others
Encourages
Innovation
Thinking
Coaches People
Rewards
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Monitors Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
**
Work
Motivation Total
Score (1-7)
**
Pearson Correlation
.313
.555
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
.301
.660
.000
.000
N
Pearson Correlation
326
326
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
**
.335
.616
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.400
.563
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.268
.430
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.273
.499
.000
.000
326
326
*
**
.116
.189
.018
.000
326
326
**
**
.237
.316
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.357
.413
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
.411
.449
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
-.177
-.499
.001
.000
326
326

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
381
Correlations
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Builds Trust
Acts with
Integrity
Inspires
Others
Encourages
Innovation
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Thinking
Coaches
People
Rewards
Achievement
Contingent
Rewards
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
Transactional
Style (0-4)
**
Laissez
Faire Style
(0-4)
**
.918
.736
-.565
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.827
.562
-.570
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.919
.746
-.546
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.832
.775
-.435
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.925
.806
-.623
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.938
.813
-.626
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.571
.764
-.234
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.782
.833
-.486
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
.725
.842
-.338
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
382
Monitors
Mistakes
Avoids
Involvement
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (1-tailed)
N
**
**
**
.634
.815
-.317
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326
**
**
**
-.630
-.447
1.000
.000
.000
.000
326
326
326

Correlations
Employee
Commitment Total
Score (1-7)
Transformational
Style (0-4)
Transactional
Style (0-4)
Laissez Fairre
Style (0-4)
Work Motivation
Total Score
(1-7)
Pearson
Correlation
.342
.600
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
**
**
Pearson
Correlation
.373
.445
Sig. (1-tailed)
.000
.000
326
326
Pearson
Correlation
**
**
**
**
-.177
-.499
Sig. (1-tailed)
.001
.000
326
326
383

A Study of The Impact of Leadership Styles On Employee Motivation and Commitment An Empirical Study of Selected Organisations in Corpor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of The Impact of Leadership Styles On Employee Motivation and Commitment An Empirical Study of Selected Organisations in Corpor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES

ON EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND COMMITMENT:

Dissertation Submitted to the Padmashree Dr D. Y. Patil University,Navi

A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES

This Thesis Is Dedicated to my Mother Late Ms Supti Ghose

Place: Navi Mumbai.

Signature of the Student

Enrolment no: 116100003

Philosophy(BusinessManagement), at PadmashreeDr. D. Y. Patil Universitys

Place: Navi Mumbai

(Rima Ghose Chowdhury)

(vi) Inter correlations among the Leadership Styles

Model of Transformational Leadership

The Supply Demand gap : Booze and Company

The New Managerial Grid

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs

The Leadership Challenge Model

Administered Pricing Mechanism

Ohio State University

Work Motivation Scale

Work Orientation Values Survey

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

as withdrawn and uninvolved. Passive management-by-exception leadership

processes in organizations, there is a strong need for

concluded that besides a participative leadership style, a clear vision or

stimulations, and personal development.

Transformational leaders would encourage followers to make great changes

reinforcement. This kind of information sharing helps alleviate the feelings of

commitment to organisational goals. This aspect serves as the right pointer to

Scope of the Study

levels in Eastern and northern region in India and were informed of

H15 :There is a significant relation between Transactional leadership style and

Where Z = Z value (e.g., 1.96 for 95% confidence), P = Percentage picking

Based on the population, 85 questionnaires were distributed on email and

segments available in thepublic domain, journals, and periodicals, books,

To assess reliability of knowledge questions, test-retest or split-half is

Transformational; (ii) Transactional; (iii) Laissez-Faire

4. Part D for Employee Motivation

Part A :Employee Demographics

Questionnaire, 0.834 for the Employee Motivation Questionnaire.

analysis, One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Cronbachs alpha were

Tabulation and Statistical Analysis of Data:

status, salary (monthly income), length of services and internal promotion.

Laissez-fairre Leadership Style: Laissez-fairre leadership styles as

Style:Transformational leadership style has a greater impact on Employee

Co-relations with Demographic details

organisations are positively and significantly co-related with a) employee

influenced by variables like employees commitment to the organisation,

transformational leadership style is more effective in bringing in the element of

setting an example. Empathy and emotional intelligence also lay the

encouragement, supporting work environment, sense of respect and

d) Based on the findings of the study, a need is felt to establish a

l) Communications on the strategy of the organisation and the function

Leadership. However, as we initiate this study and probe deeper to gain

1.1 History of Leadership Styles

The history of leadership theory started with an emphasis on traitsthe notion

early record of leadership exemplified by the general Miltiades who displayed

because of the components of idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual

Source:http://www.managementstudyguide.com/transformationalleadership.htm extracted on August 19, 2014

1.2 The concept of Commitment

1.3 The concept of Motivation

factor in work performance, success or failure of an organisation (Samuel and

Success Orientation: Individuals scoring high on this construct are motivated